Observer-Based Critical Response Estimation in Rotating Machinery

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NOTE TO USERS
The original manuscript received by UMI contains pages with

indistinct print. Pages were microfilmed as received.
This reproduction is the best copy available
UMI
O bserver B a sed C ritical R esp on se E stim a tio n In R o ta tin g
M achinery
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science
University' of Virginia
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
(Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering)
by
Christopher K. Sortore
January 1999
UMI Number: 9915374
UMI Microform 9916374

Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. Ail rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
APPROVAL SHEET
This dissertation is subm itted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering)
Christopher K. Sortore
This dissertation has been read and approved by the Examining Committee:
/
Eric H. . Dissert at ion-Ad visor
10 2 j J .
arrett, Committee Chairman
Gang Tao, Minor Representafci
5axlR. Knospe, Committee Member
Paul E. Allaire, Committee Member
Accepted for the School of Engineering and Applied Science:
^ .(jQ , U - L .2 -
Dean, School of Enineering . . . ____
and Applied Science
January 1999
A bstract
Critical response estimation attem pts to determine the synchronous forced re
sponse (displacement) of a rotor at critical points which cannot be measured directly.
This type of critical response prediction capability, if accurate and reliable, has broad
potential use in the rotating machinery industry. Many machines have close clearance
points on their shafts, such as seals, which can easily be damaged by excess vibration.
Accurate estimates of the actual level of vibration at these points could usefully assist
machine operators in troubleshooting and in protecting the equipment from expen
sive damage. This type of response information can be used both to generate less
conservative alarm limits and, if magnetic bearings axe available, to directly guide
the bearing controllers in restricting the rotor motion at these critical points.
It is assumed th at the disturbance forces acting upon the rotor are predominantly
synchronous (e. g., mass unbalance.) The design of the estim ator also accounts for
the fact that most industrial rotating machinery operates at a single, constant speed
over long periods of time, eliminating the benefits of variable speed response measure
ments. The unmeasurable response estimate is constructed using the response from
the measurable sensor locations and from an estim ator gain matrix derived from a
model of the transmissibilites of the rotor system. A fundamental performance bound
is established based on the single-speed set of measurements by bounding the response
to the unmeasurable component of the disturbance force. Acknowledging th at some
model uncertainty will always exist, a robust performance analysis is performed using
structured singular value (/x) analysis techniques. Assuming some reasonable levels
of uncertainty for the model parameters (natural frequencies, modal dampings, mode
shapes, bearing stiffnesses and dampings) the results of the estim ator construction and
analysis establish feasibility of the proposed estimation. The unmeasurable response
estimation errors consistently lie below 0.001 inches for the representative examples
examined. Structured singular value techniques are used again to construct critical
response estimators which are intended to yield superior robust performance results.
Two reference rotor models that are representative of industrially sized machines are
used to demonstrate and evaluate the estimation.
To improve estimator performance, it is proposed that an on-line identification of
the rotor system can be conducted. This rotor identification is facilitated by the use
of magnetic bearings. The force excitation and response measurement environment
provided by the magnetic bearings permits system identification implementation in
the industrial environment rather than just in the laboratory. Currently available
rotordynamics modeling and system identification techniques which are able to sub
stantially reduce the amount of uncertainty and error in a rotor model are presented
and reviewed in anticipation of future research and actual implementation. An exten
sion of these methods is proposed which allows better use of a priori, rotordvnamic
models to construct an internally matched model from measured data. This approach
permits model extrapolation to the critical locations where no experimental data is
available.
ii
A cknow ledgm ent s
There have been many individuals who have assisted me throughout this academic
endeavor - family, friends, colleagues and all the members of my dissertation com
mittee. In particular I must acknowledge the input of my dissertation advisor, Eric
Maslen, who provided essential guidance and ideas throughout my entire research
effort. I must also thank Carl Knospe for providing insight and instruction on the
practical implementation of structured singular value theory. This theory provided
an im portant building block to the dissertation. It is probably not possible to make
mention of all those th at deserve it. At the very least, however, I must lastly men
tion and thank those members of my immediate family: Ellen, Jacob, Aaron, Daniel,
Elizabeth and Ju d ith - for providing generous and encouraging support throughout
my experience.
iii
C ontents
A b stract i
A cknow ledgm ents iii
L ist o f Tables viii
List o f Figures ix
N om en clatu re xii
C hapter 1 In trod uction 1
1.1 Problem Definition and M o tiv a tio n ......................................................... 1
1.2 B e a rin g s.......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Work S c o p e ................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Reference Rotor Models ............................................................................. 8
C h apter 2 L iterature R e v ie w 11
C hapter 3 N om in al E stim ator F orm ulation 15
3.1 F o rm u la tio n ................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Decomposition ............................................................................................. 18
3.3 Critical Response Estim ation ................................................................... 20
iv
3.4 Forcing F u n ctio n s........................................................................................... 22
3.5 Maximum Estimation E r r o r ........................................................................ 27
3.6 Sensor Surface R u n o u t ................................................................................. 35
C hapter 4 U ncertainty E valuation 37
4.1 Uncertainty Representation ........................................................................ 37
4.2 Modal Parameter U n c e rta in ty .................................................................... 41
4.3 LFT F o rm u latio n ........................................................................................... 44
4.4 Structured Singular Value { f j .) .................................................................... 51
4.5 Structured Robust P e rfo rm a n ce ................................................................. 54
4.6 Robust Estimation Error B o u n d ................................................................. 55
4.6.1 Problem F orm u latio n ...................................................................... 55
4.6.2 One Case of I n t e r e s t ...................................................................... 60
C hapter 5 C onstructing a B etter E stim ator 63
5.1 Estimator Reconstruction and / z ................................................................. 63
5.1.1 Constructing a Robust Estimator using f x ................................... 64
5.1.2 Searching for the Global M in im u m ............................................. 68
5.2 Making Use of Speed V a ria tio n s................................................................. 72
5.2.1 A Single (Occasional) Speed Dip ................................................ 72
5.2.2 Model U n c e rta in ty .......................................................................... 74
C hapter 6 R otor Identification 77
6.1 Overview........................................................................................................... 77
6.2 Experimental Modal A n a ly s is .................................................................... 79
6.2.1 Frequency Domain M e th o d s .......................................................... 80
6.2.2 Time Domain M e th o d s................................................................... 82
6.2.3 Modal Parameters .......................................................................... 84
6.2.4 Model E x tra p o la tio n ....................................................................... 89
6.3 An Alternative Param eter S p a c e ................................................................ 89
C hapter 7 Conclusions 97
7.1 Research S u m m a ry ...................................................................................... 97
7.2 Future W o rk ................................................................................................... 101
B ibliography 105
A p p en d ix A M atrix M athem atics R eferen ce 110
A .l Singular Value D ecom position................................................................... 110
A.2 Linear Fractional T ra n sfo rm a tio n ............................................................. Ill
A.3 Linear Matrix In e q u a litie s.......................................................................... Ill
A p p en d ix B M odal Transform ation 113
B.l The Diagonal Form of a M a t r i x ................................................................ 113
B.2 Transformation to Real Form ................................................................... 114
B.3 Transformation to Full Block Modal F o r m ............................................ 115
A p p en d ix C T he Kalm an F ilter 117
C .l F o rm u latio n ................................................................................................... 117
C.2 Load M odels................................................................................................... 119
C.3 O b s e rv a b ility ................................................................................................ 121
C.4 Kalman Filter Uncertainty R e p re se n ta tio n ............................................ 123
A p p en d ix D R eference R otor M od el D a ta 126
D .l Three-Bearing R o t o r ................................................................................... 126
D.1.1 Lumped Mass Model D a t a .............................................................. 127
vi
D.1.2 Natural Frequencies and Mode S h a p e s ......................................... 129
D.2 Compressor R o to r......................................................................................... 131
D.2.1 Lumped Mass Model D a t a ............................................................. 132
D.2.2 Natural Frequencies and Mode S h a p e s ......................................... 134
A p p en d ix E M A T L A B Script F iles 136
E .l eyubnd2.m ...................................................................................................... 136
E.2 eyumusb.m ................................................................................................... 139
E.3 evuspma.m ................................................................................................... 144
E.4 eyubndk.m ...................................................................................................... 149
E.5 t f m . m ............................................................................................................. 153
E.6 m s u n c e rt.m ................................................................................................... 154
E.7 m u a n a g .m ...................................................................................................... 155
E.8 m u sv n T .m ...................................................................................................... 156
vii
List o f Tables
3.1 Bearing stiffness and seal coefficients........................................................... 25
4.1 Modal param eter uncertainties.................................................................... 58
4.2 Bearing and seal coefficients....................................................................... 60
5.1 Initial estim ator guesses for best estim ator s e a r c h ................................ 70
D.l Free-free undam ped natural frequencies, three-bearing r o t o r .............. 129
D.2 Free-free undam ped natural frequencies, compressor r o t o r .................... 134
viii
List o f Figures
1.1 Estimation process block d ia g ra m ............................................................. 4
1.2 Three-Bearing R o t o r ................................................................................... 9
1.3 Compressor R o to r......................................................................................... 9
3.1 Estim ated response and error, arbitrary forces, 3-bearing rotor . . . . 26
3.2 Estim ated response and error, arbitrary forces, compressor rotor ... 27
3.3 Estim ation error block d i a g r a m ................................................................ 29
3.4 Estim ated response and maximized estimation error, 3-bearing rotor . 31
3.5 Components of disturbance force vector, 3-bearing rotor .................. 31
3.6 Estim ated response and estimation error, 3-bearing r o t o r .................. 32
3.7 Maximized estimation error comparison, 3-bearing rotor .................... 33
3.8 Maximized estimation error comparison, 3-bearing rotor .................... 34
3.9 Maximized estimation error comparison, compressor ro to r........... 34
3.10 Estim ation error with sensor surface runout ......................................... 35
4.1 Linear fractional transformation representation...................................... 38
4.2 Estim ation process with additive u n certain ty ........................................... 39
4.3 Estim ation process with plant LFT structured u n c e r ta in ty ................. 40
4.4 Mode shape error. Three-bearing rotor, three sensors.............................. 43
4.5 Mode shape error. Three-bearing rotor, four sensors................................ 44
ix
4.6 Robust performance error, reduced uncertainty. 3-bearing rotor . . . . 59
4.7 Robust performance error, 3-bearing rotor, free-free r o t o r ................... 59
4.8 Robust performance error, compressor rotor with cross-coupled seal . 62
5.1 Robust performance error, fj. synthesized estimator. 3-bearing rotor . 68
5.2 Robust performance error, fj, synthesized estimator, compressor rotor
with cross-coupled s e a l ........................................................................ 69
5.3 Search for global minimum error bound, three-bearing r o t o r ............ 71
5.4 Estimation error with 1 speed dip, 3-bearing r o t o r ................................ 74
5.5 Estimation error with 1 speed dip, compressor r o t o r ............................ 75
5.6 Estimation error with speed dip and uncertainty, 3-bearing rotor . . . 76
6.1 Model identification block d i a g r a m ................................................. 92
6.2 Nominal and data-m atched transfer functions, 3-brg r o to r .......... 94
6.3 Error between actual and data-matched transfer functions.3-brg rotor 95
6.4 Matching controller transfer function gain, 3-brg r o to r ................. 95
6.5 Unmeasurable response using data-matched transfer function,3-brg rotor 96
A .l Upper linear fractional tra n s fo rm a tio n .......................................... Ill
C .l The Kalman filte r ................................................................................. 118
C.2 Kalman filter estim ation error, 3-bearing r o t o r ............................. 124
C.3 The Kalman filter with u n c e rta in ty ................................................. 125
G.4 Kalman filter with linear fractional uncertainty representation . . . . 125
D .l Three-Bearing R o t o r .......................................................................... 126
D.2 Free-free mode shapes, three-bearing r o t o r .................................... 130
D.3 Undamped critical speed map, three-bearing r o t o r ....................... 130
D.4 Compressor R o to r................................................................................. 131
D.5 Free-free mode shapes, compressor r o t o r ................................................. 135
D.6 Undamped critical speed map, compressor r o t o r .................................... 135
xi
N om enclature
A ra b ic S ym bols
A ............. State-space model state transition matrix
A r ........... State-space rotor model state transition matrix
B ............. State-space model input m atrix
B{, ........... State-space model bearing input m atrix
B d ........... State-space model disturbance force input m atrix
Cb ............. Cross-coupled bearing damping
C ............. Rotor damping matrix
Cb ........... Bearing direct damping m atrix
C ............. State-space model output m atrix
Cb ........... State-space model bearing output matrix
Cb ........... State-space model bearing (velocity) output m atrix
C m ......... State-space model measurable locations (sensors) output m atrix
C u ........... State-space model unmeasurable locations (critical points) output m atrix
C ............. Set of all complex numbers
D ............. State-space model pass-through matrix
D. Dr, D( Structured singular value scaling matrices
eJ/u ........... Estimation error, yu —yu
eyu ........... Maximized estimation error
E ............. Diagonal parameter uncertainty scaling matrices
fb ............. Shaft bow force vector
fd ............. Disturbance force vector
fm ........... Measurable component of disturbance forcevector
f u ............. Unbalance force vector
/_l ........... Unmeasurable component of disturbance force vector
xii
G, Gr, Gf Structured singular value scaling matrices
G ............. System transfer function
h ............... Impulse response function matrix
H ............. Frequency response function m atrix
H ............. Transfer function from disturbance force to estim ation error
I .............. Identity m atrix
kb ............. Cross-coupled bearing stiffness
K ............. Rotor stiffness m atrix
K b ........... Bearing direct stiffness matrix
K ............. Error feedback m atrix
M ........... Rotor mass m atrix
M ........... Transfer function from disturbance force to estimation error
r i d ............. Number of disturbance forces
nT ............. Number of rotor model states
ns ............. Number of sensors
N ............. Rotor operating speed
_Yrf ........... Disturbance force vector normalization m atrix
P ............. Plant transfer function
P mc ......... Plant transfer function from control input to measurable output
P mii ......... Plant transfer function from disturbance force to measurable output
P uc ......... Plant transfer function from control input to unmeasurable output
~Pud ......... Plant transfer function from disturbance force to unmeasurable output
K. ............. Set of all real numbers
Tn ........... Transfer function from measurable component of disturbance force to
measurable output
T21 ........... Transfer function from measurable component of disturbance force to
unmeasurable output
T n ........... Transfer function from unmeasurable component of disturbance force to
unmeasurable output
T ............. Estim ator, transfer function from measured response to estimated un
measurable critical response
uc ............. Measurable control input
u ............. Mass unbalance magnitude
U ,V Orthogonal m atrix of eigenvectors
xm
Vmw ......... M atrix of orthonormal row space basis vectors
Vnuii ......... M atrix of orthonormal nullspace basis vectors
y .............. State-space output vector
ym ........... Measurable response vector
yr ............ Sensor surface runout vector
yu ............ Actual unmeasurable response
yu ............ Estim ated unmeasurable response
x .............. State variable vector, physical coordinates
w, z State variable vector, modal coordinates
W r ........... Total rotor weight
G reek Sym bols

(*i ............ Modeled transfer function denominator coefficient
3i ............ Modeled transfer function num erator coefficient
3 .............. Worst case gain through uncertain transfer function
7 .............. Gain scaling parameter
5 .............. Uncertainty scaling factor
............ Shaft bow scaling factor
A f ........... Unstructured uncertainty block
A p ........... Augmented uncertainty block
A s ........... Structured uncertainty block
C .............. Damping ratio
6 .............. Set of identified model parameters
E ............ Diagonal m atrix of singular values
<&m ........... Mass-normalized mode shapes m atrix
<b .............. Mode shape
E ............ Diagonal m atrix of system modal damping ratios
............ Modal transformation m atrix
u ............ Frequency
ujn ........... N atural frequency
D ............ Diagonal m atrix of system modal natural frequencies
O perators
û(-) ....... Upper linear fractional transformation

Re(-) ....... Real part
W - ) ......... Imaginary part
/*(•) ......... Structured singular value
£(-) ......... Upper bound on
^(•) ......... Maximum singular value
1' I2 ........... 2-norm (vectors), induced 2-norm (matrices)
1■loo ....... Infinity norm
(•)r ......... Matrix transpose
(■ )-........... Matrix conjugate transpose
(-)-1 ....... Matrix inverse
(•)+ ......... Matrix pseudoinverse
XV
C hapter 1
Introduction
1.1 P rob lem D efin ition and M otivation
The present work addresses the problem of determining the forced response of a rotor
at critical points which cannot be directly measured. This type of critical response
prediction capability, if it is accurate and reliable, has broad potential use in the
rotating machinery industry. Many machines have close clearance points on their
shafts, such as at a seal location, which can be easily damaged by excess vibration. An
accurate estim ate of the actual level of vibration at these points could usefully assist
machine operators in troubleshooting and in protecting the equipment from expensive
damage. Some specific uses of this type of critical response information might be
to generate less conservative vibration alarm limits and, even more significantly, to
directly guide magnetic bearing controllers in restricting the rotor motion at these
critical points.
The application of magnetic bearings in this problem is not a t all fundamental
to the solution. The theory that is developed can be applied to any rotor system
with any type of bearing. However, some knowledge of the bearing properties is
CH APTER 1. IN TRO D U C TIO N 2
required to perform an accurate response estimation. In order to achieve the best
possible performance, it is expected th at some means of on-line rotor identification is
available. Since it is possible for the behavior of a rotor to evolve slowly over time,
the on-line identification is aimed at maintaining an accurate model of the rotor
in order to maintain the accuracy of the model-based estimator. For many rotors
without magnetic bearings, on-line identification may be difficult to realize. A well
characterized magnetic bearing is particularly useful in th at it inherently prorides a
mechanism for performing identification. Magnetic bearings proride this capability
without additional mechanical component cost, although a digital controller or similar
computerized interface would be required for the purposes of the on-line identification
and for the critical response estimation calculations.
The theoretical basis for this work is straightforward. Fundamentally, it must be
shown that measurements of sensor signals (and bearing force inputs, if available) can
be used to accurately determine the magnitude and phase of both a variety of distur
bance forces acting upon the rotor and. ultimately, motion at points other than those
that are directly measured. In general, rotordvnamic disturbance forces can be cate
gorized into three main groups: those th at are constant, those th at are synchronous
and those that are random or unpredictable. This work focuses on response due to
synchronous forces. Dominant synchronous disturbance forces may be produced by
mass unbalance at distributed locations along the rotor, seal interaction, coupling mis
alignment, shaft bow, disk skew or fluid excitation. There are many machines which
are subject to non-synchronous disturbance forces, however, synchronous forces are
by fax the d o m in a n t, forcing mechanism in most rotating machinery.
It is assumed th at these disturbance forces can evolve and change slowly over
time and during machine operation. It is also known th at a large portion of rotation
machinery is designed to operate at constant speed. It is well established that just
CH APTER 1. IN TRO D U CTIO N 3
a few sensors can be used to identify a relatively large number of well characterized
synchronous disturbance forces, such as mass unbalance, if measurements are taken
at many different speeds [Van88]. However, if it is required to re-estimate the distur
bances due to their slow evolution, it may be very difficult, inconvenient or even costly
to impose the necessary speed variations on the actual machine. The primary* empha
sis of this work will address rotor with a constant speed constraint. This constraint
will place a lim itation on the performance of the estimation process.
There are two main components which influence the critical response estim ation
process. First, the nature of all the dominant unknown disturbance force inputs must
be identified. This entails identifying the type of force, the location at which it acts
and a realistic bound on its magnitude. Second, the transmissibilities between the
input forces and the measurable and unmeasurable output displacements must be
determined. The overall estimation process is built upon a model based analysis
of the rotor system. This process is summarized in Figure 1.1. In general, the
process involves obtaining measurable responses from the actual plant, and using
these measurements along with the model of the plant to produce an estim ate of the
unmeasurable response. A rotor identification step is integrated into the process for
the purpose of providing a means by which the assumed model of the plant can be
improved. A typical rotor model can be described by the set of linear sta te equations
x(t) = Ar x(t) 4- B d f d(t) 4- B c uc(t) (1.1)
y(t) = C x ( t ) + D f d(t) (1.2)
Based upon this model, a frequency domain inpu t/o u tp u t relationship, between the
the measurable and unmeasurable response and disturbance and control inputs, can
C H A P TE R 1. IN TRO D U C TIO N 4
m Vm
Figure 1.1: Estim ation process block diagram
be derived as
P ) P mc ( - d )
(1-3)
P ad M P UC(-')
In order to accurately predict the unmeasurable response. yu(^')- all of the above
transmissibility coefficient subm atrices. P mc(^). P tic(^) and P ^ 1). must
be identified. Once identified, the unmeasurable displacements can be computed as

-l
Uuiuj) P „cM Pud(lx'’) j^P77Kf(u') .(u;)luc(a;)
(1.4)
- ii
+ [P u d (^ ) [ P n u f M j ym p)
The unknown disturbance force can also be identified, as an intermediate step to
(1.4), and is computed as
f d(u) = [Pm rfM ] [ym M - P mc(u;)uc(a;)] (1.5)
The result, as can readily been seen from (1.4) and (1.5), is highly dependent on the
quality of the estim ated transmissibility coefficient submatrices. In addition, P m^(u;)
must be invertible which, as will be shown, is not necessarily possible.
CHAPTER 1. INTRO D U C TIO N 5
All of the transmissibility coefficient subm atrices in (1.4) can be easily extracted
from the model (1.1) and (1.2). However, the prediction of yu(ui) should be rela
tively insensitive to assumptions made in modeling the rotor. To the greatest extent
possible, the rotor model should also be determined from on-line measurements. As
is demonstrated by Knospe, et al. [KHF94], it is possible to accurately estim ate a
rotor model on-line, but only when the estimation mechanism (i. e., the bearing com
puter/controller) has direct access to all output measurement points and all input
excitations. The identification step necessitates a model structure which allows di
rect measurement of accessible transmissibility coefficients (i. e., P mc(uj)) to be used
to estimate inaccessible transmissibility coefficients. These transmissibility coefficient
matrices must be estim ated through a model based analysis using an appropriate pa
rameter estim ation technique. It is required to minimize in some sense, by choice
of an appropriate set of parameters, 0,, (e. g., a set of modal parameters,) the dif
ference between the modeled transmissibility coefficient m atrix, P mc(fl„ cj), and the
measured transmissibility coefficient m atrix, P mc(w). The identified parameters, 0*,
upon which the modeled system depends can then be used to extract a more accurate
representation of the needed unmeasurable transmissibility coefficient matrices.
1.2 B earin gs
Access to the bearing force input signals uc{uj) is necessary to accomplish the task of
rotor model identification. However, it is not necessarily required in order to perform
the response estim ation as (1.4) would imply. Bearing forces can be accommodated
in this analysis in a variety of ways. If magnetic bearings are employed, then it is
possible to augment the nominal rotor model with a state space model of the magnetic
bearings. This would resulting in a higher order model consisting of rotor states and
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CHAPTER 1. IN TRO D U C TIO N 6
controller states. In general most of the controller states contribute modes to the
system which are either high in frequency or overdamped. These modes have very
little influence on the synchronous response of the rotor and can be truncated from the
model, via a modal condensation process, if so desired. The obvious alternative is to
apply a single stiffness and damping, at each bearing location, with the assumption
that the controller states will not influence the response. For a magnetic bearing,
an equivalent stiffness and damping coefficient can be derived from the feedback
controller transfer function, Gc, as
N eq{u) = K x + KiRe(Gc(jcu)) (1.6)
C„(w) = fl-i Im(G‘ fjk'» (1.7)

U)
The open loop stiffness of a magnetic bearing is denoted by K x and the actuator
gain by A',-. For other types of bearings it is obviously more convenient to specify
the stiffness and damping coefficients of the bearing, rather than a bearing transfer
function. In terms of the rotor model states, the force imposed by a bearing can be
expressed by
{ /6} = K bC b{x} (1.8)
This force is subsumed into the state space free-free rotor model by
{i} = A rf f {x} + B 6{ / 6} (1.9)
= [A.r// +B6A&C6] {x} (1-10)
{£} = A r {x} (1.11)
Regardless of the type of bearing th at is employed, if the model for the bearing is
subsumed in to the rotor model, then there is no need to have access to the bearing
force control input uc(u)) and the estimation posed by (1.4) simplifies to
y u{u) = | p ud(u;) [Pmd(u;)]-1 Jym(u>) (1.12)
CH APTER 1. INTRO D U CTIO N 7
1.3 W ork S cop e
The complication which makes the overall critical response estimation difficult is in
determining both the fidelity of the estim ated/m odeled transmissibility coefficient
matrices and the accuracy of the final response estim ate. It is with this issue th at
this dissertation is predominantly concerned. It is necessary to distinguish between
an actual unmeasurable response. yu, as opposed to an estim ate of the unmeasurable
response yu. From this an error, eVtt, is computed for the purposes of evaluating the
performance of the estimation process. This error is depicted in the block diagram
of Figure 1.1. The actual immeasurable response will, of course, never be known in
practice but is needed in the performance evaluation and characterization process for
both simulation and experimentation. The basic objective in evaluating the perfor
mance of the estimation process is to show how the error and uncertainty in either the
inputs (the disturbance forces) or the transmissibility matrices (the model) influence
the error in the estim ated response.
The fundamental objectives of the research are identified in the following:
• Development of an observer/estimator synthesis technique. A method for de
signing a nominal estimator from the rotor model is addressed in in C hapter 3.
A means of determining a fundamental bound on the performance of the critical
response estimation process is also presented.
• Development of a method for evaluating the robust estimator performance.
Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the effect of model error on the critical response
estimation process. The m a n n e r and extent to which model uncertainly effects
the accuracy of the estimated response is examined.
• Determination of whether the solution will work for real systems. Examples are
used throughout the discussion to dem onstrate the efficacy of the solution.
C H A P TE R 1. IN TRO D U CTIO N 8
These objectives have all been met and are demonstrated throughout the discussion.
The unmeasurable response estimation errors consistently lie below 0.001 inches for
the representative examples examined.
In C hapter 6 the process of rotor model identification is explored with the object
of improving accuracy of the model used to produce the response estimation. It is
not intended to develop or design any new system identification algorithms in this
work, as the field of parameter estim ation and system identification is a very ma
ture and broad field. It is demonstrated th a t existing identification methods can, in
part, be applied to the particular vibration environment of a rotating machine. It
is discovered, however, that existing identification methods do not address the issue
of identifying models for input and output points th at are not directly measurable.
Current identification methods fall short in offering a solution to this problem. Meth
ods th at can accomplish the needed identification of transmissibilities th at cannot be
directly measured are proposed.
1.4 R eferen ce R otor M o d els
Two rotor models are used throughout the discussion to provide examples and demon
strations of the estimation process. The first rotor is a long, flexible three-bearing
rotor. The geometry of this rotor is illustrated in Figure 1.2. The bearing layout of
this rotor is intended to be representative of a large boiler feed pump. The second
model represents a large turbomachine rotor such as th at would be used in a single-
stage centrifugal pipeline compressor. The geometry of this rotor is illustrated in
Figure 1.3. Detailed information regarding the models of these two rotors is included
in Appendix D.
One reason for selecting these rotors is because they are believed to be represen-
C H A P TE R 1. IN TRO D U C TIO N 9
sensor sensor sensor

critical critical critical
clearance clearance clearance extra
no. 1 no. 2 no. 3 sensor
bearing motor bearing bearing

mass
thrust disk
Total Rotor Weight: 225 lbm
Overall Length: 98 in
Maximum Operating Speed: 5200 rpm
Figure 1.2: Three-Bearing Rotor

clearance clearance clearance
sensor no. 1 no. 2 no. 3 sensor
extra
extra sensor extra
sensor no. 1 sensor
no. 2a no. 2b
bearing •thrust disk bearing
Total R otor Weight: 2380 lbm balance piston

Maximum Operating Speed: 7000 rpm compressor wheel
Figure 1.3: Compressor Rotor
C H APTER 1. IN TRO D U C TIO N 10
tative of industrially sized machines, to which this theory is intended to apply. Both
models are intended to represent machines which, in general, are designed to operate
at constant speed. “Unmeasurable” points along the rotor have been selected and
identified in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 which represent the location of seals or other po
tentially close clearance points. In addition, potential additional sensing points have
been identified which are used to evaluate the improvement in performance of the
estimation methods when additional sensor measurements are available.
C hapter 2
Literature R eview
In the precess of searching the literature relevant to this problem, no specific litera
ture regarding unmeasurable response estimation in rotating machinery was discov
ered. This issue has not been directly addressed in the research literature. Due to the
difficulty of the problem, the application of modem control methods, and develop
ments in other fields as well, has made the solution more tractable than in the past.
The strategy in the design and evaluation of the estimation algorithms involves the
application of several well developed disciplines, each of which contribute a critical
element to the overall process. These fields are outlined below.
Linear S tate Observers
The proposed solution to the problem of predicting response at unm easurable points
is fundamentally finked to the design and implementation of a state observer. Back
ground literature [Fri86] [Rug93] concerning observers and observability for linear
systems is obviously relevant and a useful starting point in gaining insight into the
present work. The application of a Kalman filter is one possible avenue to investi
gate. The Kalman filter is an optimum observer and so the design m ethods based on
11
C H A P T E R 2. L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W 12
optim al control theory such as linear quadratic gaussian (LQG) controller design are
also relevant. General references [GL95] [Mac89] with respect to this area of modern
control proved to provide useful insight.
Syn ch ron ou s H arm onic C on trol
The control of rotor synchronous vibration, also known as open-loop balancing or
adaptive vibration control (AV'C), is of significant relevance. This type of control
algorithm is very effective in rejecting periodic disturbances. Work in AVC has es
tablished much of the groundwork for the current research, particularly in regard to
th a t portion of the response which is directly measurable. This subject has been ex
tensively explored by Knospe, et al. [KHF94] [KHF95] [KTF97], Hope, et al. [Hop94]
[HMK97] and Tamer [Tam96].
The developments in AVC differ from the present research, however, in th at only
the transmissibilities from measurable inputs (the magnetic bearing actuators) to
measurable displacements (the sensors) are of interest in AVC. W ith a sufficient col
lection of measurements of the measurable input and output signals it is possible to
determine a very accurate measure of these transmissibilities. Some open-loop control
schemes rely more heavily on an accurate model of the rotor than others, while the
estim ation process in the current work requires a rather good mathematical model of
the rotor. The present work is interested in accurately establishing the transmissibil
ities from both known and measurable forces to the unmeasurable outputs.
S tru ctu red U n certain ty A n alysis
The construction of an estim ator will rely upon a model of the dynamic system, a
model which inevitably has some errors and uncertainty. An evaluation of the effects
of this model uncertainty is central to the present investigation. Structured singular
CHAPTER 2. L IT E R A T U R E R E V IE W 13
value (//) analysis very effectively fills this need. W ithin the scope of this work, fi will
be used to robustly bound the predicted error in the critical response estimation pro
cess. Representing a dynamic system in the form of a linear fraction transformation
(LFT) is part of the model error evaluation process. The substantial contributions
of Young, et al. [You93] [You94] [YND91] [YND92], Doyle, et al. [DPZ91], Packard
[Pac88] and Zhou, et al. [ZDG96] have proven critical to the successful application
and use of these control system analysis tools.
System Id en tification
The application of param eter estimation and system identification methods will be
ultimately required in order to successfully deploy the critical response estimation on
an actual operating machine. This general area is indeed vast and well researched.
The available literature on this subject is quite extensive. Astrom and Eykoff [AE71],
and Sorenson [Sor80] provide comprehensive surveys of the field. As extensive as it is,
however, it is interesting to note that under the particular input/output measurement
environment of typical industrial rotating machinery, on-line estimation of modal
parameters has not been well studied. The measurement environment of a rotor
supported in magnetic bearings is a very specific one and will consequently narrow the
choice of applicable estimation algorithms. Of note is the recent dissertation by Zhong
[Zho97] which provides a useful survey of the relevant estimation techniques directly
applicable to rotating machinery. The field of experimental modal analysis is also of
particular interest. Harris [Har96] presents a general overview of this particular area of
identification. The identification of modal param eters (natural frequencies, damping
ratios, mode shapes) is a common method of characterizing rotating machinery and
is used in the ensuing analysis. The topic of system identification and experimental
modal analysis is explored further in Chapter 6.
C H APTER 2. LITE R A TU R E R E V IE W 14
R otor D yn am ics and M agnetic Bearings
The successful investigation of this current work requires a general working knowl
edge of rotordynamics. Relatively recent texts by Ehrich [Ehr92] and Childs [Chi93]
provide suitable references. An understanding of the basic issues of mass unbalance,
shaft bow. synchronous forced response, etc.. are all essential to the successful prob
lem formulation.
A better understanding of the role of magnetic bearings within the field of rotor
dynamics has become evident over the past decade. These bearings offer substantial
benefits in many applications that other types of bearings simply cannot offer. In
the context of unmeasurable response estimation, magnetic bearings offer a special
measurement environment that permits accurate rotor system identification, which
ultimately leads to more accurate response prediction. A detailed presentation of
magnetic bearing design, analysis and integration is beyond the intended and rel
evant scope of this current research effort. The integration of magnetic bearings
into a rotating machinery and the analysis thereof has been specifically addressed by
Maslen [Mas91] and by many other researchers. The interested reader is referred to
the extensive body of literature now available on this subject.
Chapter 3
N om inal E stim ator Form ulation
The critical response estimation process logically requires an estim ator which makes
use of the measured rotor displacement signals to produce a prediction of the response
at an unsensed rotor location. This chapter formulates a straightforward method for
constructing a nominal estim ator. In addition, the character and influence of the
input disturbance forces on the estimated unmeasurable response is investigated.
Singular value decomposition is the central m athem atical tool th at is used to accom
plish the ensuing formulation. This decomposition reveals a m ethod for constructing
and evaluating a fundamental performance bound on the constant speed estimation
process.
3.1 F orm ulation
To begin the analysis, some simplifying assumptions are employed:
1. The plant (i. e., the rotor) has been modeled completely and perfectly. This
assumption is not as unreasonable as it may appear. W ith the employment of
any and all system identification techniques currently available, it is possible
15
C H A P TE R 3. NOM INAL E ST IM A T O R FORMULATION 16
to force the error between the actual system and the modeled system to be
arbitrarily small. For the purposes of the discussion in this chapter, it is assumed
th a t this model error is negligible.
2. The locations and behavior of the input loads are well known, (e. g., unbalance
force is synchronous with rotor rotation and increases by the square of the
frequency, at a known rotor location - an attached disk or large added journal
mass.) Many synchronous loads have been thoroughly studied and are well
understood. It is reasonable to assume th at some engineering knowledge is
available regarding any particular [synchronous] load mechanism. A bound on
the m agnitude of the load must be identified. An adequate accounting for the
loads may require postulation of a large number of loads - this is a m atter of
engineering judgment.
3. There is negligible measurement error or noise. The fidelity level of typical
magnetic bearing sensors is usually quite high, as this is required to maintain
stability margins. Since the estim ation is based upon the use of measurable
sensor signals, it is reasonable to insist that “good” measurements are available.
Practical availability of high quality sensors dictates that there is little reason
to expect otherwise. Sensor runout is a separate source of error and will be
address separately. It can, in fact, be characterized in a manner sim ilar to th at
of the disturbance input forces.
It is acknowledged at the outset that the rotor response, the force inputs and the
relating transfer functions are all very much frequency dependent. As already noted,
this work is concerned only with those components of the forced response th at axe
synchronous under constant speed operating conditions. In the following discussions,
the frequency dependent notation is generally om itted for simplification. It is included
C H APTER 3. N O M IN A L E STIM ATO R FORM ULATION 17
for clarity when required.
The rotor response at all points of interest, namely the measurable and unmeasur
able response outputs, ym and yu, can be represented by the input/output relationship
t \ *
Vm I Pm d
(3-1)
-------- 1
{fd}
II
CU
1
in which the input, / d, is largely unknown. For a rotor model provided in the state
space form
{x} = A r {x} + B d{ f d} (3-2)
C m C u {x} (3-3)
the transmissibility matricies P md and P u<f are extracted as
Pmd = C m{sl - A r ) lB,f (3-4)
Pud = C u(s / —A r )~lB (3.5)
In principal, with perfect knowledge of the plant, the unmeasurable response could
be computed, using a collection of measured responses, as
fd = [Pmd] 1 Vm (3-6)
Vu — P u d fd (3-7)
Uu = Pud[Pm d] Urn (3-8)
assuming, or course, th a t [ P md]-1 exists. This assumption, however, is not at all ap
propriate in this case. T he instrumentation on most rotating machinery may provide
two or three translational vibration sensors, four perhaps a t most. The input vector,
f d, is, in reality, infinite in dimension. In modeling practice, it is certainly finite,
but it is quite easy, even necessary, to model many more inputs than the number of
CHAPTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATO R FORMULATION 18
available sensor outputs. The matrix P md will not be full rank and will therfore not
be invertible.
This, of course, makes logical sense: only n variables can be determined from a
set of n equations as given by (3.6). A pseudoinverse isrequired,which,in essence,
will invert that portion of P md which is invertable:
f = [Pmd}+ ym (3-9)
But information is lost in the pseudo-inversion process: / is not a full representation
of f d. It is necessary to identify exactly what information is lostand w hat influence
this will have on the estimation process.
3.2 D eco m p o sitio n
Consider the straightforward relationship between the measured outputs and input
disturbance forces
Vm — P md fd (3.10)
where P md is a m atrix of frequency dependent transfer functions having more columns
than rows. This rectangular m atrix will not be full rank and will have a non-empty
nullspace. Physically, this implies that the input vector contains components which
will not influence the output. Consider the following transformation on (3.10), in
which the two components of the force input, one which does influence the output
and one which does not, can be extracted and defined. First, a singular value decom
position isperformed on the matrix P ^
Pmd = UEV* (3.11)
CH APTER 3. NOM INAL E STIM A TO R FORMULATION 19
where V is partitioned as
V = ^null (3.12)
such that Vrow provides an orthonormal basis of the row space of P md, and V'nuii
provides an orthonormal basis for the nullspace of P m<i- Using the identity I = W * .
(3.10) can be expanded as
Vm = PmdVV* f d (3.13)
V*
row
= P md ^row ^null {/-} (3.14)
KTun
Vm — P m d U ow P m d ^ n u ll (3.15)
Note that
P m r f^ n u il — 0 (3.16)
which, of course, follows from the definition of the nullspace of a matrix. This trans
formation can be extended to (3.1) as well and the following definitions simplify the
transformed system of equations:
T n = P mmddVv ,row (3.17)
T21 = P u<iV'ow, T 2 2 — P utfUnuii (3.18)
(3.19)
The input/output representation (3.1) can now be expressed as
•11 0
(3.20)
'21 L22
C H A P TE R 3. NO M INAL E STIM ATO R FORMULATION 20
One im portant benefit of this transformation is th at the subm atrix T n is square
and full rank (i. e., it is now invertible.) The size of Tn is equal to the number
of available sensor measurements, ns. A trivial method now exists by which the
measurable components of the input force vector can be determined:
(3.21)
The vector components f m and f± do not necessarily have any physical meaning (i. e..
it is not possible to compute f m from a set of response measurements and use it to
determine an actual state of unbalance in a rotor.) They are simply m athem atical
artifacts of the transform ation process and the actual input force is m athem atically
described as a linear combination of f m and f±_:
fd — ^rowfm “b ^fa\illf±' (3.22)
The vector f±_ is a collection of linear combinations of the inputs which are, by
definition, orthogonal to P mtf- They are projected onto the nullspace of P m</ and have
no influence upon the measurable output, ym. These inputs do however, influence the
unmeasurable response yu. This is precisely what the conversion from (3.1) to (3.20)
reveals.
3.3 C ritical R esp o n se E stim ation
The complete unmeasurable response th at is produced by the disturbance force is
given by
Vu — P udfd (3.23)
or, in the transformed set of equations
(3.24)
C H APTER 3. NO M INAL E STIM A TO R FORMULATION 21
The measurable force component, / m, is given by (3.21). The vector fj_. however, is
not known and cannot be determined with a single-speed set of measurements. The
product T22f±_ is that portion of yu th at is lost. The estimate th at must be reported,
based upon the measurable components of the force which were determined from the
sensor measurements, is therefore given by
tin = T2i f m (3.25)
This estimate can also be expressed as
y« = T ym (3.26)
where
T = T2lT{[1 (3.27)
is defined as the nominal estimator. It is an observer which takes the measured
sensor signals and produces the best possible estimate of the unmeasurable response.
It is also an optimal estimator, in the sense that it is the best possible performing
estim ator that could be created, since full and complete knowledge of the plant has
been assumed. An error, eyu, between the actual response and the estim ated response
can be computed as:
ey« = Vu ~ Vu (3-28)
= Pud/d - T 21f m (3.29)
= [T2ifm + T22/jl] - T21f m (3.30)
eyu = T22/ ± (3.31)
This error represents a fundamental bound on the performance of the estimation
process. This error will always exist since the only way to produce a measure of /j_ is to
CHAPTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATO R FORM ULATION 22
use a collection of measurements at speeds other than the particular current (assumed
constant) operating speed. It is possible to compute a bound on the maximum gain
on the m atrix T22 , th at is simply the maximum singular value (at each frequency)
of the computed model for T22. It is necessary, however, to determine how large the
entire product of T22f± can become. To do this, it is necessary to consider the models
for the input forces, taking advantage of any existing knowledge of the behavior of
these forces, and incorporate them into the model.
3.4 Forcing F unctions
Two of the most common sources of synchronous disturbance forces that are impor
tant in rotating machinery are mass unbalance and shaft bow. The general form of
the force due to mass unbalance is
f u = uw V *1 (3.32)
The main sources of mass unbalance will almost always lie in disks and other compo
nents mounted on the rotor. Bounds on the magnitude of u can usually be made by
considering the manufacturing tolerances for the various parts (i. e., the eccentricity
of the part and the assembly.) The bound can also be determined experimentally
using an appropriate balancing procedure. The bounds on the magnitude of the
unbalance force at each point on the rotor can be contained within in the m atrix
L
(l^ 2Umax, 11
Nu = [diag —y ~------
JJ
(3.33)
and the bound on the unbalance force vector is given by
Wufuloa < 1 (3.34)
Shaft bow represents a condition in which the static equilibrium shape of the shaft
does not coincide with the axis of rotation. Bow is, in general, just as likely to be
C H A P TE R 3. NOMINAL E ST IM A T O R FORMULATION 23
present as mass unbalance, particularly in slender shafts or rotors which have been
subject to thermal stress or gravity sag [Chi93]. Bow can be incorporated into the
rotor model by including an unstressed shaft shape, x b, in the governing differential
equation
M x -+- C x + K ( x —Xf,) = f (3.35)
where the bow is defined in term s of rotor fixed coordinates. When the rotor spins,
the bow changes orientation according to
Xf, = Xbocos(ujt) + ybosin(ujt) (3.36)
The vector = K x b clearly represents an additional synchronous excitation force on
the rotor
M x + C x + K x = f + fj, (3.37)
The actual shape of the bow can be measured or computed from a model, but the
actual magnitude and phase relative to other forces will be unknown. As with unbal
ance, it is reasonable to claim knowledge of a bound on the maximum possible bow
magnitude
\M < l^lma* (3-38)
and subject to
IWaloo < 1 (3.39)
where
JV. = (3.40)
I^61max
CH APTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATOR FO RM U LATIO N 24
Additional synchronous rotor forces can be included in a similar manner. The
radial forces due to a bearing seal for example could be characterized by
f s = se7"0. (3.41)
The bounds on the magnitude of any seal force, s. at each point on the rotor might
be computed from a model of the seal and can be contained within the matrix
(3.42)
providing a bound on the seal force vector given by
\Nsfs\oo < 1 (3.43)
It may be necessary to construct more complicated models of disturbance forces since
for some components, such as some seals, it may be difficult to establish a reasonable
bound on the maximum force. It is likely to be more appropriate to incorporate a
seal component into the rotor model as an uncertain stiffness and damping. This
alternative will be addressed in Chapter 4.
Each individual load can be assembled into the single disturbance force vector.
fd, where for the three types of loads just described would be
/ \
(3.44)
subject to
Nu 0 0
\Ndfd\oo < 1 where Nd = 0 Nb 0 (3.45)
0 0 N3
C H A P TE R 3. NOM INAL ESTIM A TO R FORMULATION 25
model three-bearing rotor compressor rotor

bearing stiffness, Kb 50,000 lb/in 200,000 lb /in
bearing damping, Cb 100 lb-s/in 200 lb-s/in
Table 3.1: Bearing stiffness and seal coefficients.
At this point it is possible perform an estimation using any rotor model and an
arbitrary set of input disturbance forces. It is a straightforward procedure to select a
disturbance force distribution, compute the measurable forced response of the rotor
(ym) and perform an estimation of the unmeasurable response using (3.26). This was
done using the two reference rotor models and the results are shown in Figures 3.1
and 3.2. Table 3.1 specifies the values of the bearing stiffness and damping coefficients
applied at each bearing location. The mass unbalance m agnitude (in units of oz-in) at
several shaft locations was selected according to the API specification [API95] given
by
4W
u— j f (3.46)
where W T represents the weight (lbm) of the rotor and N the operating speed (rpm.)
The mass unbalance was added at each of the large disks and bearing journals, see
Figures 1.2 and 1.3. This represents a not-insignificant level of imbalance, especially
if it is allowed at multiple locations at the same time. A shaft bow, in the assumed
shape of the first free-free mode of the rotor, of .010” max T IR was also included.
The estim ated unmeasurable response and an error
eyu = V u - y« (3.47)
between the actual yu and estimated yu unmeasurable response is plotted in these
two plots. The estimator for the three-bearing rotor tends to perform a little better
at frequencies around and below the nominal operating speed. This is due to the fact
CHAPTER 3. NOM INAL ESTIM ATOR FO RM U LATIO N 26
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
(in)
le-05
5200 rpm
le-06
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.1: Estimated response and estim ation error due to arbitrary disturbance
forces. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor measurements.
that three sensor measurements available, instead of just two. The two sensors of
the compressor rotor simply do no provide enough information to produce a usable
estimation at certain frequencies below the nominal operating speed.
For reference, lines at 0.001” (1 mil) and 0.0001” (.1 mil) are shown in these
and in later plots. Errors that appear below 0.0001” are quite insignificant. Errors
bounds that appear above the 0.001” threshold are likely to be unacceptable. These
plots partly resemble a forced response or bode plot of the response magnitude at
the unsensed rotor locations, but they actually present something slightly different.
These plots make, within the context of a very accurate rotor model, a prediction
of the accuracy of the unsensed response estim ation. This estimate is based upon
the the rotor model (i. e., through the estim ator, T , given by (3.27)) and the actual
measurable sensor response, ym - not just on the rotor model alone (as a typical
forced response plot would be.)
It is clear th a t this type of forced response calculation could be performed using
C H A P TE R 3. NOM INAL E STIM A TO R FORM ULATION 27
0.1
0.01
0.001
Magnitude 0-0^01
(iQ) le-05
le-06
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.2: Estimated response and estimation error due to arbitrary disturbance
forces. Compressor rotor, critical point # 2 , two sensor measurements.
any rotor model and any particular distribution of forces to evaluate the viability of
the critical response estimation. However, it is not at all clear as to what particular
set of forces should be chosen in order to make any predictions about the accuracy
or reliability of such a calculation. One distribution of forces may produce a larger
response or larger estimation error than another. A much more useful issue to address
is th at of maximum expected estimation error.
3.5 M axim u m E stim a tio n Error
One useful means to investigate the maximum possible error is to compute the partic
ular input force vector that will maximize the error between the actual unmeasurable
response and the estim ated unmeasurable response. One means way th a t this can be
CHAPTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATO R FO RM U LATIO N 28
done is to formulate and solve the optimization problem
f d = argm axflejjoo) subject to \Ndfd \o e < l (3.48)

fd
where fd is the particular force vector, at each different frequency, that produces the
maximum error between the actual and estimated unmeasurable response. The use
of the infinity norm requires a nonlinear vector search and precludes a closed form
solution. An alternative optimization problem to solve is given by
fd = a rg m a x (|e jj2) subject to \Ndfd \2 < 1 (3.49)

fd
Using the 2-norm perm its a closed form solution. In addition, the solution is very
close to (3.48), noting that the 2-norm of any vector / in R " is bounded by
l/loo < l / |2 < M f \ o o . (3.50)
It isnoted that the API mass unbalance specification applied at each unbalance
location represents a fairly large and substantial load and is expected to produce a
somewhat conservative result (most machines are expected to operate with an actual
unbalance state th at is much less than th at specified by the API maximum.) In this
context the 2-norm, which is a somewhat less conservative than the oo-norm, is in
part justified. In addition, as will be presented in later discussion, the 2-norm is the
most appropriate for the evaluation of model uncertainty.
Defining fd as the normalized disturbance force vector subject to
\fd\2 = \Ndfd \2 < 1, (3-51)
then the maximum error is determined simply by computing the induced 2-norm
of the gain m atrix from fd to eVu. From inspection of the block diagram shown in
C H APTER 3. NOMINAL E STIM A TO R FORM ULATION 29
Estimator. T ^ Plant. P
Figure 3.3: Estimation error block diagram
Figure 3.3 this gain matrix is constructed as
Vu (3.52)
= [ P u d - T P md\ N - lf d (3.53)
= P^-fd (3.54)
For disturbance inputs subject to (3.51). the maximum error is determined by the
induced 2-norm of H. computed from its maximum singular value
a rg m a x (|e jJ2) = eVu = cr(H) (3.55)

fd
The particular force vector which produces this m axim um error can be found by
solving the optimization problem (3.49), which is equivalent to maximizing \eyJ[\, so
f d = argmax(|ej,u|^) (3.56)
fd
f d = arg m ax (/JH * H /(i) (3.57)
fd
Performing the decomposition
H = UEVt (3.58)
CHAPTER 3. NOM INAL ESTIM ATO R FORMULATION 30
and letting
f d = Vw (3.59)
transforms the problem to the following, which can be solved by inspection:
w = arg m ax(u;*V*VE*irUEV* Vw) (3.60)

W
= argmax(u/*£*Su;) (3.61)
W
(3.62)
in which crL, • - •an are the singular values of H in order of descending magnitude on
the diagonal of S. The obvious choice for the vector w to maximize (3.62) subject to
\fd\2 = |Vto|2 < 1 is
(3.63)
Using (3.59), the particular (dimensional) force vector that will maximize the estima
tion error is given by
h = N ~ lV w (3.64)
The vector w simply selects the first column of the orthogonal matrix V , which is the
eigenvector of [H*H] associated with the largest singular value, a = <j\.
The maximization posed by (3.49) was performed on both reference rotor models
and results of this analysis are presented in Figures 3.4 through 3.9. The MATLAB
script file eyubnd2.m, included in Appendix E was used to perform the analysis. It
is important to note th at the plots for eVu shown in these figures represents a bound,
at each frequency, on the maximum possible estimation error. This is because the
disturbance force vector is changed at each frequency, as shown in Figure 3.5, to
produce the largest possible error. Obviously, the disturbance force vector would
never actually change in such a maimer.
C H APTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM A TO R FORM ULATION 31
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude 5200 rpm

le-10
(in)
le-20
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.4: Actual response, estimated response and maximized estim ation error.
Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor measurements.
0.8
0.6
Normalized
Magnitude
0.4 /unbalance locations)
0.2
0 >ow
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.5: Normalized components of the input disturbance force vector which pro
duces the maximum estimated response error. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 ,
three sensor measurements.
CHAPTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATO R FO RM U LATIO N 32
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude le-05
(in) le-06
le-07
le-08 5200 rpm
le-09
le-10
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.6: Estim ated response and estimation error. Forces are chosen to maximize
actual unmeasurable response. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor
measurements.
Figure 3.4 presents an interesting result. The error maximization is accomplished
by finding the particular force which also produces virtually no usable information at
the measurable sensors for the observer to use. The fact th a t the magnitude of the
error is the same as the actual unmeasurable response is somewhat irrelevant, due to
the fact that the actual unmeasurable response is acceptably small - there is no need
for a good estimate of the response.
All other forces, subject to |iVd/ d|2 < 1, will result in an estimation error which is
below th at shown in Figure 3.4. For example, it is possible to compute a force which
maximizes the actual unmeasurable response at a particular critical point and then
perform an estimation of the response via (3.4). The resulting error will be less than
eVu and Figure 3.6 illustrates this. It is interesting to note th at the error tends to be
small when the estim ated response is large, indicating th a t the estimate is likely to
be favorable at critical or im portant frequencies.
CHAPTER 3. NOM INAL ESTIM ATO R FORMULATION 33
0.001
0 0001
Magnitude
le-05 •yu 3 (3 sen so rs)
(in)
le-06 5200 rpm
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.7: Maximized estimation error comparison, three sensors and four sensors.
Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 .
This analysis presents a very useful method by which the benefit of additional
translation sensors can be assessed. Figure 3.7 reveals the benefit of placing an addi
tional (a fourth) sensor at the right end of the three-bearing rotor (refer to Figure 1.2.)
The error bound for estimation at critical point number 3 is reduced with the addition
of the fourth sensor. A substantial benefit is not alway realized, however, as shown
in Figure 3.8 which reveals little improvement in the error bound at critical point
number 1.
This comparison was also done for the compressor rotor model, which produced
the more dram atic results shown in Figure 3.9. First, one sensor was added to the
rotor in the region of the thrust bearing (this area could conceivably be accessible
to instrumentation.) Second, two sensors are added, one on the inboard side of each
bearing in which case the error is reduced even further, as shown in the plot. A
comparison of the error bounds shows a substantial improvement in performance by
using three sensors rather than two.
C H APTER 3. NOMINAL E STIM A TO R FORMULATION 34
0.01
0.001
■yu 3 (3 sensors)
0.0001
Magnitude , „
>. x le-05
(in)
le-06 5200 rpm
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.8: Maximized estimation error comparison, three sensors and four sensors.
Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 1 .
0.01
0.001
!yU 2 (2 sensors)
0.0001
Magnitude 3/uj
(3 sensors)
le-05
(in)
le-06 7000 rpm

■yu4(**,ensor3)
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3.9: Maximized estim ation error comparison, two, three and four sensors.
Compressor rotor, critical point # 2 .
C H APTER 3. NO M INAL ESTIM ATO R FO RM U LATIO N 35
ud
Estimator Plant
md
Figure 3.10: Estimation error with sensor surface runout
3.6 Sen sor Surface R u n ou t
Sensor surface runout, yr, is a physical eccentricity between the sensing surface ge
ometric center and the desired axis of rotation. This runout can also be caused by
non-uniform electrical or magnetic material properties around the circumference of
the sensing surface. Figure 3.10 shows how sensor runout enters into the estim ation
process. The runout is included in the expression for the error by
€yu —P udfd T [yr + P mdfdJ (3.65)
(3.66)
Clearly, runout can be evaluated in the same m anner as the disturbance forces were in
the previous section. It is again reasonable to place a bound on the maximum expected
magnitude of the sensor surface runout, either from measurements or mechanical
fabrication and assembly tolerances. Note th a t if sensor surface runout is included
in the analysis, additional sensors are not guaranteed to improve estim ation error
bound, as they do for the cases in which runout is not included. The runout imposes
an input to the system which may m itigate or even overcome any benefit of the
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C H A P TE R 3. NO M INAL E STIM A TO R FO RM U LATIO N 36
additional sensor information. Runout may contribute a loss of performance only at
particular frequencies or certain unmeasurable estimation points, but still provide a
benefit at others.
Chapter 4
U ncertainty Evaluation
A next step in gaining understanding into the character of the critical response esti
mation process is the evaluation of the influence of model uncertainty on the problem.
It is accepted, due to modeling errors, that the model of a rotor can never exactly
reproduce the true system dynamics, so it is necessary to incorporate and evaluate
the effects of these errors. The main purpose of this chapter is to present a method for
casting the estimation process into a form which will facilitate the evaluation of model
uncertainty and formulate a process by which the influence of model uncertainty on
the predicted estimation error may be identified.
4.1 U n certa in ty R ep resen tation
The estimation process developed so far is clearly based upon a m athematical model of
the physical rotor. But the relationship between the model and reality is, of course,
never exact and the quality of the model will be determined by how closely the
response of the model matches the response of the true plant. In order to accurately
evaluate the effects of the errors between the model and the true plant on the critical
response estimation process a suitable description of the expected or likely sources of
37
CH APTER 4. U N C ERTAINTY EVALU ATIO N 38
Figure 4.1: Linear fractional transformation representation
error into the model. The choice of a particular model uncertainty representation will
reflect the a priori knowledge of the physical mechanism causing the error. This choice
will also depend upon the ability to produce a sensible m athem atical representation
of the mechanism which will permit the accurate evaluation of the error.
One very im portant and powerful tool used in the analysis of control system
robustness is the structured singular value (//) matrix function. The application of
p analysis to the critical response estimation problem will be discussed later in this
chapter. However, the f.i formulation of uncertainty analysis requires th at the transfer
function matrix and the associated uncertainty be represented by a linear fractional
transformation. A linear fractional transformation (LFT) is a shorthand notation
denoting a specific feedback interconnection between two matrices. Figure 4.1 denotes
an “upper LFT of G by A” and is expressed by
G u ?t — A) (4.1)
Equation 4.1 and Figure 4.1 represent a family of systems falling within the uncer
tainty bounds defined by A. The structure and bounds of the uncertainty are selected
so th a t the transfer function of the true plant, G t, is believed to lie within this family
of possible systems. The reader is referred to Appendix A for more detail on linear
fractional transformations and suggested references.
CHAPTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALUATION 39
2U
’- 1
H
m
S )^ Urn
Figure 4.2: Estimation process with additive uncertainty
The difference between the model and the true system can be expressed in several
ways. The simplest is an additive model, such as
G t = G + Aa (4.2)
Model error can also be represented in a relative multiplicative form such as
G ( = ( / + Am)G (4.3)
Indicating a percentage error in a term of param eter. But given the identity A a =
AmG, these two representations are actually equivalent. These and other various
representations are generally analogous and any particular selection is a m atter of
convenience. The difference between the model and the true system can also be
expressed by a LFT. Prior to performing any analysis of the model error, it is desired
to first recast an error representation from th at given by (4.2) or (4.3) to a LFT
representation such as th at given by (4.1) and Figure 4.1.
W ith the introduction of an additive model error into the critical response estima
tion already developed in the previous chapter, the process takes on the form shown
in Figure 4.2. The disadvantage in attem pting to construct a LFT for each of the
two transmissibility matrices and their associated model uncertainties is th at there
C H APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVA LU ATIO N 40
Vm
Figure 4.3: Estimation process with plant LFT structured uncertainty
is substantial redundant information between the two matrices T u and Tji. which
can potentially produce overly conservative results on the predicted estim ation error
bounds. The m atrix T[[l is not really in a form that is effectively represented by
an LFT (due to the matrix inverse) without also introducing unwanted conservatism
(This is not to say that a LFT representation is not possible.) The application of
complex and unstructured uncertainty is likely to be necessary. It may be difficult
to identify a means by which to assign a sensible and realistic bound to this type
of uncertainty. The matrices Tu and Toi are not in a particularly desirable format
for applying LFT uncertainty representation. Ultimately, it is desired to evaluate the
estimation error, eVa. not just the estim ate yu. An equally valid alternative is to apply
the uncertainty to the plant, as shown in Figure 4.3, in which a family of plants is
created denoted by the LFT .FU(P , A ), and evaluate the estim ation error with respect
to the nominal estimator, T , designed from the central values of the plant. Due to
the chosen modal format of the plant model, this structure is much more amenable
to linear fractional uncertainty representation than the actual estim ator matrices.
CHAPTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATION 41
4.2 M od al P aram eter U n certa in ty
The present analysis employs a modally-reduced state-space rotor model of the form
fd (4.4)
-n 2 - 2EQ
V= (4.5)
The matrix ft is a diagonal matrix of the damped natural frequencies of the retained
modes of the system. The matrix E, also diagonal, contains the modal damping ra
tios. the mass-normalized, orthogonal mode shapes are contained within th m atrix
$ m. There are a num ber of benefits to using this type of modei. One, it substantially
reduces the size and order of the model to a much more reasonable size. This, of
course, allows much faster computational times. Assuming a sufficient number of
modes are retained, a modally truncated model has also been proven to produce very
accurate and reliable results [Van88 ] [Chi93]. The truncated modes are expected to
provide negligible influence on the dynamic response, thus justifying their elimina
tion. In rotating machinery, often only five or six modes are required. An additional
useful benefit to using a model in this form lies in the fact that it is composed of
three well defined and identifiable parameters: modal frequencies, modal dam ping
ratios and mode shapes. These parameters can be obtained either computational!}'
or experimentally, and the truncated model can be constructed without knowledge of
the full set of modes.
In examining the accuracy of any model, it is logical to assign a suspected error to
the various param eters of which the model is composed. In this case, it is the modal
parameters. Practically, the actual amount of error in a particular param eter may be
chosen from experienced intuition or more rigorously by actual experiment. Typically,
CH APTER 4. U NCERTAINTY EVAL UATION 42
the modal frequencies are the best known parameters, as they are the easiest to
measure. The lower frequencies tend to be more accurately identifiable. Damping
ratios are slightly more difficult to measure and mode shapes are difficult to measure
accurately and completely. The uncertainties used in the ensuing analysis attem pt
to reflect these trends. The modal param eter errors represent real, (as opposed to
complex) structured uncertainty.
Mode shape uncertainty presents an interesting issue, since technically, a large
array of sensors is required to obtain a complete and accurate measurement of the full
mode shape. Having access to this many sensors is, of course, not a very reasonable
expectation for a piece of operating machinery. It is possible, though, to make some
reasonable assumptions about the shape of the mode shape error, based on the sensors
th at do exist in the machine. It is reasonable to expect that a good measure of the
mode shape is possible at the sensor locations, using an appropriate identification
method. The error in the mode shape is not likely to be very large at locations
close to the sensor, and will increase only in a manner which is physically possible at
locations farther away from the sensor. One would not expect slope discontinuity in
the error.
A sinusoidal mode shape error, <p±, was designed to reflect this behavior. A half
sine wave was used between each sensor which maintained slope continuity. Other
functions (e. g., polynomial) could also be used to construct this error vector. The
MATLAB script function m su n cert. m, included in Appendix E, returns a unit nor
malized mode shape error vector based upon only the lumped-mass model station
locations and the sensor locations. This additive error vector is scaled for each mode
shape by a factor, a^, which is a selected percentage of max( 0 i). Figures 4.4 and
4.4 present the application of this assumed mode shape error for the first bending
mode of the three-bearing rotor reference model. Note that the additional sensor in
C H APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATION 43
Unit
Normalized
Magnitude 0
(in)
1
• in d ic a te s s e n s o r lo c a tio n , s ta tio n no . »
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance Along Rotor (in)
Figure 4.4: Unit normalized mode shape error and range of perturbed mode shapes.
First bending mode, three-bearing rotor, three sensors.
Figures 4.5 serves to reduce the mode shape error in the vicinity of the sensor itself,
but does not provide any significant benefit to the other regions of the shaft.
Identifying uncertainty in the physical parameters of rotor dimensions and m ate
rial density is another alternative for designing an uncertainty representation. Finite-
element computational rotor models are composed of these specific parameters. These
parameters are easy to measure (prior to machine operation, of course) which is one
reason current finite element modeling techniques produce very accurate results. Ob
viously, however, these param eters cannot be directly measured during machine op
eration, so they cannot be used directly to generate refined models of the rotor in an
on-line scenario.
It should to noted th at the errors described so far are assumed to represent a finite
tailed distribution of error (as opposed to an infinite-tailed Gaussian distribution, for
example.) The imposed error values represent hard bounds, within which the true
param eter is expected to lie. The actual distribution of error within the finite bounds
C H A P TE R 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATIO N 44
Unit
Normalized
Magnitude 0
(in)
1
• in d ic a te s s e n s o r lo c a tio n , s ta tio n no. i
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 4.5: Unit normalized mode shape error and range of perturbed mode shapes.
First bending mode, three-bearing rotor, four sensors.
is actually irrelevant - it can have any shape. The ensuing uncertainty analysis, in
effect, finds the particular combination of parameters, based on the uncertainty levels
given, which results in a worst case performance measure of the system. An infinite
tailed error distribution would make little sense in this case, as it would essentially
produce arbitrarily bad performance - not a very useful measure.
4 .3 L FT F orm ulation
The differential equation of the rotor, in state-space, first order form, (block P in
Figure 4.3) with explicit term s included for the bearings (stiffnesses and dampings)
and disturbance forces can be written out as
{z} = A r {z} + B bK bC b{z} + B 6C 6C 6{z} + B d{ f d} (4.6)
CH APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALUATION 45
Where { z} = {I}- It is expected th at each m atrix in (4.6) has an associated uncer
tainty. The A, B and C state-space matrices will contain errors due to the uncertain
modal parameters. The uncertainty in bearings and seals is repesented by uncertain
stiffness and damping parameters. A well characterized magnetic bearing can be ex
pected to contibute fairly reasonable uncertainties to the model - on the order of
10% or less. Typically, the actuator gain of a magnetic bearing is easy to compute
accurately. The open loop stiffness is more difficult to pin down, but can be very
nearly completely eliminated using a “flux feedback” control scheme [Kei93], which
has proven to be fairly common in industrial magnetic bearing installations. The
magnetic bearing electronic controller would introduce virtually no uncertainty. The
controller components are well known and an accurate controller transfer function
can be accurately measured. Other types of bearings (hydrodynamic bearings, ball
bearings, etc.) will introduce varying amounts of uncertainty [SK96]. Seals can have
a very- wide range of expected uncertainty levels, depending on the type of seal and
the machine operating conditions [Chi93] [Zha98]. The differential equation can be
rewritten including explicitly the terms for the uncertainties in each of the matrices.
Note that only first order uncertainties are included in the formulation.
{ z} = [Ar -I- A r i]{z}
+ [(B6A 6C6) + (B 6a K bC b + B 6A 6aC6 + B bK bC bJ ] { z }
+ [(BftCftCfe) -F + (B 5aC6C6 + B 6C6aC6 + B&C&C6A)]{z}
+ [B<f -I- BdA]{/d}

The central valued bearing terms may be combined with A r and all the uncertain
terms may be grouped together resulting in

{z} = A r{z} + B d{ f d)
+ [ArA + B 6aA 6C6 + B 6A 6aC6 + B 6A'6C6a (4.8)
+ B 6aC6C6 + B bZbAC b + B&C&C6a] { z } + BdA{fd}
Due to the addition of the bearings, the state m atrix A r must be transformed back
into the desired modal block form (i. e., [_ „ 2 _2i n ]) - Using a transformation
the differential equation now becomes
{w} = A{u;} 4- 'Jr_1B d{fd}
+ [A * + * ~ l ( B b^ K bC b + B bK bAC b + B bK bC b^ (4.10)
+ B b&CbC b + B bZbAC b +{uj} + ^ B d A{fd}
where A = 'fr_IA r,i r. The reader is referred to Appendix B for the formulation
of this transformation. Any modes which become overdamped by the addition of
the bearings may be truncated from the model, as they will have no effect on the
synchronous response. In order to construct the LFT depicted by Figure 4.3, each
uncertain parameter is treated as an unknown external force produced via feedback.
As such, output signals y must be generated for each uncertain term in the above
equation. This signal is applied to the A uncertainty block which in turn feeds back an
appropriate uncertain force signal. This uncertain force signal represents the influence
of the the uncertain term on the differential equation. The diagonal matrices E u , E$,
E 0, E k and E z are introduced which provide appropriate scaling for uncertainty in
the modal frequencies, modal damping ratios, mode shapes, bearing stiffnesses and
bearing dampings, respectively, (e. g., The ith diagonal element of Ew contains the
expected percent error in the ith modal frequency, the ith diagonal element of E k
contains the expected percent error in the stiffness of the ith bearing, and so on.) The
uncertainty signals for those terms shown in (4.10) are derived as follows.
First to be formulated is the the A ^{ uj} term, which includes uncertainties in the
C H APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATIO N 47
modal frequencies, w, and modal damping ratios, f:
0 I
A A {m} = (4.11)
JQ2]A [2 Efl]A
■0 0 Q2{2EU) o
{w} (4.12)
. I I J 0 2 EQ (£? + EL,)
1
■“ ” 1
r
o
A a {J£} = 0 [n2(2JEL)] {z} + 2=Tt{E^ -F E u,) {i} (4.13)
I . L
i
Uuj = 0.2{2 E uj) { w } f u = [?] (4.14)
= 2=n(J5'jf + £J{u;} = [?] A ^ O /J (4.15)
The ^ lBftAii'6C 6'ir{u;} term contributes an error due to uncertainty in the mode
shapes:
* - 1B 6a A'6C 6*{u;} = [*r°B6i] t f 6C 6tf{u7} (4.16)
y<t>K = E 0$7±BbsKbCbIf{w} f^K = # 1 [J] (4.17)
The LB 6A 6AC 6'Ir{tc} term represents an uncertainty in the bearing stiffness coef
ficients:
t f - ' B ^ C W u ; } = * - lBbEKKbCb${ w} (4.18)
Vk — E K K b C b ^ { w } f K = I f ' 1 [5] A K { y K } (4.19)
The ^ B 6.ft&C{,A'If{?£} term also contributes an error due to uncertainty in the mode
1
shapes:
H-lB bK b C b ^ { w } = V - lB bKb[Cb,$A 0]*{m} (4.20)
C H A P TE R 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALUATION 48
Vk <
s>— [E<t> 0]^{u;} fK0 = ^ (4.21)
The three uncertain terms involving the bearing damping (C&) are formulated in the
same fashion as those involving the bearing stiffness (Kb) except th at the uncertain
output signals are generated by the velocity components of the modal state vector.
z, where C b = [0 C 6, <&]. These terms will provide the output signals y^c- y c • Uco
and the corresponding uncertain force input signals f^c-. fc - f c 0 • Other components,
such as seals, along with their associated uncertainties may also be easily included in
this formulation just as with the bearing components.
The lB dA{z} uncertain disturbance force input term contributes error again
due to uncertainty in the mode shapes but also in the assumed shape of the shaft
bow vector. It is formulated as
= «rl B unb.\ Bbow^ (4.22)
0
B bow Zbow ^ {fd} (4.23)
$ l B unb3
{fd} (4.24)
0 -^bow
J “ © .bow S b o w ^ - ’b o w ^ "^ô.baw {yô.bow } (4.25)

/
The state space output equations also have uncertainty:
{yu} = C u#{u;} + C UA^{w} (4.26)
{ym} = C m$ { l } + C mA^{u;} (4.27)
The C u^ I f{ w } and terms each contribute an error to the output signals
CH APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATION 49
yu and ym, respectively, due to uncertainty in the mode shapes:
= [CUj$ A 0]*{u/} (4.28)
= [E <o 0]^{m} /<*„ = C Uj$ AA 0u{y«,n} (4.29)
C m^ { w } = [Cm, $ A 0]*{u/} (4.30)
y<bm= [E* 0]^{u/} /0m= Cmj$AAdm{y^m} (4.31)
noting that yK<t>= y ^ = y*m.
Using the signal definitions defined throughout this section, the LFT .FU(P ,A )
for (4.10), depicted in the block diagram of Figure 4.3 can now be constructed where
A Bi b 2
p = C! Du d 12 (4.32)
-----1
P
D 21 cs4
C
. C2
and
r
n 2(2E„) 0
0 25Q (£f 4-£L)
E ^ l B bsK bC b^
E kK bC b
C1= E* 0 (4.33)
E zCb Cb
C H APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATION 50
1
1
1
1
-------
0
0
0
ffl
II
1
1
—
1
(4.34)
1
0 0
... tf-
tf-l ^ - lB 6 * - lB bCbC b,$ A V -1
/ I
0 P
r - 0 C Uj$A 0
D u — 0, D i2 — B Us 0 , D 21 — (4.35)
0 0
0 E bo
and
Si
Ac — Si e R, |£{| < l (4.36)
Sn
The A . B 2. C 2 and D 22 = [0] matrices remain unchanged as the nominal plant
model matrices. Note that uncertainty due to error in the mode shapes enters the
formulation more than once. This would allow the mode shape error for each of the
different sources to vary independently and would be expected to result in increased
conservatism. It would allow one particular mode shape to hold more than one
shape in the analysis. This is obviously not physically realistic. The solution is to
rearrange the rows of C i and D 12 and the columns of B x and D 21 to reorganize the
A 5 uncertainty block to
A5 diag • • - » Sunmi Sfyi, • - • , SÛnm, S<

f>lInxn, . . . , S,pnmI nxn (^*30
Sk i , - - - >fifCnb> , • • • r $Cnb , £bow] (4.38)
where the mode shape error is repeated n times. The number of retained modes in
the model is represented by nm and the number of bearings by n b. The uncertainties
remain real and structured.
C H A P TE R 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATION 51
4 .4 S tru ctu red Singular V alue ( f i )
The structured singular value (/z) is a matrix operator which has two primary' uses
in evaluating dynamic systems. One is the evaluation of the closed loop stability
of an uncertain system transfer matrix. The other is the evaluation of system per
formance by robustly bounding the maximum singular value through an uncertain
system transfer m atrix. It is through this second application th a t fi analysis will
be used in this work. The essential utility of fi is th at is can bound the maximum
singular value (a) (and also the spectral radius) of an uncertain transfer matrix. For
an LFT defined by .FU(M , A) the formal definition [ZDG96] of fx is
/Xa(M) = m in{a(A) : A € A ,d e t( / - M A ) = 0} (4'39)
for M € Cnxn and A is the block diaginal set of perturbations of the form
A = diag[At , A2? . . . . A n] (4.40)
and where A, may take on any combination of the forms
A t = SInxn, S € R (repeated real scalar block) (4.41)
A t = SInxn, d 6 C (repeated complex scalar block) (4.42)
At = S € Cmxn (full complex block) (4.43)
Note that the full complex block need not be square.
Com putation of the structured singular value is not particularly easy but it can
be shown th at fi of an uncertain m atrix M always satisfies
p(M ) < /za (M ) < a( M) . (4.44)
These bounds, however, can be arbitrarily conservative. It is possible to produce a
much less conservative upper bound on n by introducing a transform ation on the
C H A P TE R 4. U NCERTAINTY EVALU ATIO N 52
m atrix M . These transformations V are defined as
V = diag [A , A t, . . . , Dp] (4.45)
where the matrices Z?t- are constructed so as to match the associated A, block accord
ing to
Di € Cnxn, Di = D\ > 0 (4.46)
for Ai = SInxn, d G C or 5 6 R (repeated complex or real scalar A blocks)
Di = Sljixni $i € C. 5{ > 0 for At- € C 1*" (full complex A blocks) (4.47)
In this manner the scaling matrices D are chosen such that they commute with A.
Applying the identities
A = A D D ~ l = D A I ?-1 = D - l AD (4.48)
to (4.44) results in an upper bound on the structured singular value of M given by
Jt. = inf o^D M D -1) (4.49)

D£V
the scaling matrices may be subsumed into M (with which they do not commute) and
by doing so reducing the value of a(DNLD~l ) but not affecting the value of ^ a (M ).
Finding the minimum of cr(Z?MD-1) over the family of admissible transformation
matrices is a convex problem and as such, a solution always exists and the global
minimum is routinely found by commercial equation solvers [BDG95].
For fj. problems involving some purely real uncertainties (the mixed-/* problem.)
with which this work is particularly interested, it is possible to introduce another set
of scaling matrices which take advantage of the explicit realness of the perturbations.
Representing a real uncertainty with a complex perturbation introduces undesirable
and unnecessary conservatism. The transformations Q are defined as
Q = diag[Gi, G 2 , - • • • Gp\ (4.50)
The matrices Gj are constructed so as to match the associated A block according to
Gi = diag[<fc], gi € R (4.51)
for A, = SInxn, 8 G R (repeated realscalar A blocks)
Gj = 0 for repeated complex and fullcomplex A blocks (4.52)
These scaling matrices provide an extra degree of freedom, in addition to the D-scales,
in the search for the global minimum for ^ a (M ). The upper bound is now given by
/za (M) < /? (4.53)
for some ,8 > 0, D and G £ Q such that
(I + G2)~* ( j j D M D ~ l - jG^J ( / + G2)-? < 1 (4.54)
The computation of this smelliest (8 is cast as an Affine M atrix Inequality [BDG95]
and is also easily found by commercial equation solvers.
So far in this brief presentation of fi analysis it has been assumed that each and
every A block is square. The present work requires the general, non-square, mixed-fx
analysis formulation. In this case, appropriately sized scaling matrices, Gt, Gm, Gr ,
Di and D r and a /? > 0 must be found which satisfies
a ( / + G |) - l Q d j M D " 1 - j g A ( / + G 2r) - i < 1 (4.55)
The smallest such j3 provides the upper bound on
/xA(M ) < min/? = JxA(M ) (4.56)
The scaling matrices D( and Dr satisfy
Dt = D m
e > 0 , Dr = D*r > 0, Dr A = A Dt (4.57)
C H A P TE R 4. U N C ERTAIN TY EVALU ATIO N 54
The scaling matrices Gi, Gm and Gr have exactly the same nonzero elements as in
4.54. However,the dimension of the zero blocks of these matrices must match with
the nonsquare M . A generalized and complete presentation is given by Young and
Doyle [YD90].
4.5 S tru ctu red R ob u st P erform ance
The central objective of the present work is concerned with establishing a bound on
the performance of the response estimation in the presence of model uncertainty. The
essential issue to be addressed is to identify how much error can be expected in the
estim ate of the unmeasurable critical response, given the structure and magnitude
of the identified model uncertainties. The use of fi analysis plays a critical role in
the process of answering this question. The LFT ^ ( G , A) is considered to achieve
robust performance (at one particular frequency) if
||.FU(G. A ) ||2 < 1 V A € A : max£7 [A] < 1 (4.58)
The application of p. to this problem has been established via theorems related to
the development of p analysis. The first is related to condition of robust stability.
T h e o re m 4.1 [You93] For 3 > 0 and A € A with || A | |2 < j then the feedback loop
imposed by the L F T J-U{G. A) is internally stable if an only if
sup p ^ { G ) < 8. (4.59)
If the LFT ^ U(G, A) has n^ inputs and riy outputs, a set of perturbations A p (of
dimension na x ny) can be introduced such that
A 0
: A € A, Af G (4.60)
0 Ap
A second theorem addresses the issue of robust performance:
C H A P TE R 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATIO N 55
T h e o re m 4.2 [You93] For p > 0 and A 6 A with ||A ||2 < ^ then the L F T
JFU(G, A) < {3 if an only if
sup fJ.&.P(G) < /3. (4.61)
This, in fact, is nearly identical to the theorem establishing robust stability for G.
The difference is that the analysis is subject to augmented perturbation matrices.
Proofs and formulations of this particular utility of fj. analysis are presented in a
number of references [ZDG96] [CS92], to which the reader is referred for more thor
ough and detailed presentation. Although the presentation and notation may be
cumbersome, the resulting concepts and implementation are straightforward: Robust
performances is characterized by introducing a fictitious uncertainty block across
the disturbance/error channels, carrying out a robust stability analysis, plotting the
bounds obtained from the jj. calculation and drawing conclusions about the perfor
mance of the original uncertain system described by ^ ( G , A)
4.6 R ob u st E stim a tio n Error B o u n d
4.6 .1 P ro b lem F orm u lation
Bv subsuming the estim ator T into the LFT P U(P, As) depicted in Figure 4.3, a
new LFT is formed describing the performance of the estim ation process. This LFT
defines an uncertain transfer function from disturbance force to estim ation error. The
overall goal of this analysis is tc establish the maximum possible gain, 7 , through the
LFT
ipPtt( M ( T ) , A 5 ) | | 2 < 7 (4-62)
for all allowable structured uncertainties, thus establishing a bound on the estimation
error. The objective is to determine 7 . It is com m on to relocate the gain parameter,
7 , so as to formulate a test which robustly bounds the gain through the LFT by unity,
such that
(4.63)
where M ( 7 ) is now given by
Pn P l2
M (T , 7 ) = (4.64)
7 / ! - t . P 21 i 1 -T P 22
and
P 1 1 = C 1C7w / - A r ) - lB t + D n (4.65)
P 12 — Cl { j u j l — A r ) lB 2 + D i 2 (4.66)
P 21 — C>2{jijjl — A r ) Bi + D 21 (4.67)
P 22 — Q> { j w l — A r ) lB 2 + D 22 (4.68)
Recall that, since this is a robust performance test, an augmented uncertainty block
As 0
Ap = A 6 A . A f £ C n<1xny (4.69)
0 Ap
is also required. Note that both M and Ap are non-square due to the difference in
the number of inputs and outputs. There is only one estim ation error, e?/u, (ny = 1 )
but any [reasonable] number of modeled inputs, as selected by the analyst. It has
been established [ZDG96] th at the condition given by (4.63) is equivalent to a fj
calculation:
||P u (M (T , 7 ), A s)|| < 1 Ma „ (M (T ,T)) < 1 (4.70)
Finding a close upper bound on ^ a p(M (T , 7 )) is accomplished in an efficient manner
using the MU command in the MATLAB toolbox. Finding a 7 which satisfies this
condition is easily found by a bisection routine or similar algorithm.
C H APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATIO N 57
To demonstrate this process the structured singular value robust performance
analysis, described in the preceding discussion, was performed on the reference rotor
models and the results are presented in Figures 4.6-4.8. The MATLAB script file
eyumusb.m, included in Appendix E, was used to perform the analysis. The modal
parameters were assigned an error according to Table 4.1. These error levels are used
in most of the example uncertainty analyses for both the three-bearing rotor and
compressor rotor models. Assigned uncertainties of the bearing stiffness and damp
ing coefficients are summarized in Table 4.2. In order to practically limit the size of
the A uncertainty block, mode shape uncertainty associated with the bearing input
and output matrices (e. g., equations (4.17), (4.21)) was not included in the analysis.
For the two reference rotor models examined here, and typical of many machines,
the bearings are located directly adjacent to the sensor locations, where mode shape
uncertainty is expected to be very small. Mode shape uncertainty influencing in
put and output points farther away from the sensors is, of course, expected to have
greater influence and must be included. It is generally good practice to limit the size
of the uncertainty representation to th at which is practical and sensible. This avoids
producing overly conservative results. The resulting augmented uncertainty block,
Ap, was of dimension 32 x 26 - fairly large compared to many n analysis feedback
control applications. Larger uncertainty blocks which included the mode shape er
ror in the bearing input and output matrices were constructed but suspected poor
numerical conditioning problems at numerous frequencies prevented a full analysis
of these larger blocks. Successful computations at some frequencies indicated th at
uncertainty in these matrices does not, as suspected, have noticeable influence on the
predicted estimation error bound. The differences in the results were on the order of
five percent.
The robust performance bound for the three-bearing rotor is shown in Figure 4.6.
CH APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVAL UATION 58
mode frequency error damping ratio error mode shape error

scaling, EUi scaling, E& scaling, at, E&
1 2% 3% .04
2 2% 4% .06
3 3% 5% .08
4 3% 7% .10
5 4% 9% .12
6 4% 11% .14
Table 4.1: Modal parameter uncertainties
It is observed, as expected, that the error bound increases throughout the speed range
from that predicted from the nominal optimal model. At lower frequencies the error
increases by a substantial percentage, but is still acceptable. At higher frequencies,
including the operating speed, the robust error bound adds 0.0005” or less to the
error predicted with no uncertainty, remaining within acceptable bounds (below the
.
0 001 ” threshold.)
An interesting observation is made by performing an uncertainty analysis on a free-
free rotor. The results of one such analysis are shown in Figure 4.7. Since there is
very little damping in the model, the response can grow very large at the resonances.
The peaks in this plot are located at the free-free natural frequencies of the rotor
(refer to Table D .l in Appendix D Small uncertainty in the location of a resonance
has the potential to result in very large estimation errors and poor performance in
the neighborhood of the resonance. In contrast, when additional damping is added to
the system through the bearings (Figure 4.6,) the effect of uncertainty in the location
of the natural frequencies is substantially mitigated.
C H A P TE R 4. U N C E R TA IN TY E V A LU A TIO N 59
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude „ a n a ly sis )
c x le-Oo
(m )
le-06 5200 rpm

6 y u (n o u n c e r ta in ty )
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.6: Maximized robust performance error and nominal maximized estim ation
error. Reduced uncertainty description. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 . three
sensor measurements.
0.1
0.01
0.001
Magnitude
(in) 0.0001
!yu (m a n a ly sis )
le-05
le-06 5200 rpm
Cy (n o u n c e r ta in ty )
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.7: Maximized robust performance error and nominal maximized estim ation
error. Free-free rotor. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor measure
ments.
model coefficient central value percent error

three-bearing Kb 50,000 lb /in 10 %
rotor cb 100 lb-s/in 10 %
compressor Kb 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 lb /in 10%
rotor cb 2 0 0 lb-s/in 10%
K s(u) K s -+• csuj (1,000 lb/in) 20 %
seal C s (uj) Cs 4" ks/u) (10 + 1 0 , 0 0 0 / u) lb-s/in) 20 %
Table 4.2: Bearing and seal coefficients
4.6.2 O ne C ase o f Interest
One particular case of interest is the response estim ation of a critical point which
is also the point of excitation. It was postulated th a t this particular scenario could
present difficulties due to the combined uncertainties of both the response estima
tion and the disturbance force acting at the same point. One example of this is a
seal component such as a balance piston seal in a compressor, which can contribute
substantial destabilizing forces to the rotor. Annular liquid seals in pumps typically
contribute substantial and very uncertain forces to the rotor. Marscher [Mar89],
Childs [Chi93] and Zhao [Zha98] all provide insight into this issue. If unaccounted,
this can introduce a substantial difference between the actual and modeled dynamics
of the rotor. This scenario was examined for the compressor rotor in which a seal was
introduced into the model at the balance piston location. All the examples examined
in this work so far have used a planar rotor models, assuming th at motion in both
the x- and y-planes is essentially identical. It is possible, however, to incorporate
cross-coupled seal coefficients into a planar rotor model by assuming a synchronous,
circular, forward whirl of the rotor.
CH APTER 4. U N C E R TA IN TY EVALU ATIO N 61
The forces of a cross-coupled seal component are typically represented as
1
**d
Cs cs
< > + (4.71)
$
Cs
1
w
V)
1
i
If the vectors y and y can be expressed in terms of x and x, then it is possible to
accurately include cross-coupled coefficients into the planar rotor model. If motion
in the x-direction is assumed to be given by
x = X cos(uit) (4.72)
then by assuming synchronous forward whirl, the motion in the ^/-direction is assumed
to be
y — X sin(a;i) (4.73)
The vectors y and y are expressed in terms of x and x as
y = — x, y = ux (4.74)
UJ
and
Cs — ~ X (4.75)
LJ
The result is frequency dependent direct stiffness, K s(ui). and damping, Cs(u;), coef
ficients to be incorporated into the planar rotor model.
An analysis was carried out on the compressor rotor model with a cross-coupled
seal acting on the critical point of estimation. The results of this analysis are presented
in Figure 4.8. The value of the cross-coupled coefficient, fcs, was increased linearly
with frequency from 0 (at 0 rpm) to 10,000 lb-s/in at 7000 rpm. As in Figure 4.7,
the peaks in this plot are due to the uncertainty in the lightly damped higher modes
(frequencies) of the system.
0.01------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude
/- > le-Oo
(in)
le-06
le-07
le-08 ■ 1 1 1 ■»1
................
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.8: Maximized robust performance error and nominal maximized estimation
error. Cross-coupled seal acting at point of estimation. Compressor rotor, critical
point # 2 . three sensor measurements.
This case of estim ating the response at a point of uncertain disturbance is not
particularly complicating, since the estimation of this type of unmeasurable point
is just as easy to formulate as any other point. The ability to generate a reliable
and accurate estim ate will be controlled mainly by the observability of the particular
point of interest. Depending on the particular disturbance load and measurable sensor
configuration, some unmeasurable points may be more, or less, easily observed from
the available sensor measurements than others. The analysis presented in this and
the previous chapter serve to provide a means to evaluate this issue for any given
rotor.
Chapter 5
C onstructing a B etter E stim ator
A logical question to pose is whether there exists a “b e tte r’ choice for the estimator.
T , which will provide a reduced response estimation error bound. Two methods were
investigated which have the potential to produce a b etter performing estim ator than
those that were constructed in Chapters 3 and 4. One m ethod uses the structured
singular value again, in a slightly different manner, to construct a better performing
robust estimator. Another method considers the use of speed variations to collect
more information from the rotor, with the intent of constructing a b etter nominal
estimator. This b etter nominal estim ator can be evaluated again by /i to determine
the robust performance.
5.1 E stim ator R eco n stru ctio n an d [i
The utility of the structured singular value test has been dem onstrated in the previ
ous chapter as a means to provide a robust error bound for the nominal estimator.
A recent development by Knospe, et al. [KLH98] has dem onstrated a interesting
and useful method of constructing robust gain m atrices for magnetic bearing adap
tive vibration control algorithms. The method formulates a means to construct an
63
C H APTER 5. C O N STRU CTING A B E T T E R E STIM A TO R 64
estimator which realizes a reduced robust performance estim ation error bound. This
method can be readily adapted to the present problem.
5.1.1 C o n stru ctin g a R o b u st E stim a to r u sin g fj,
The upper bound on the structured singular value of M is computed by solving the
optimization problem
Ma (M) = inf
D € D ,G € G
W ith M fixed, this is a convex optimization problem which will minimize 3 over the
scaling sets V and Q. It is also possible to minimize 3 with respect to T . with the
scaling matrices all fixed, since the linear m atrix inequality (LMI) condition in (5.1)
is linear in M (which, in turn, is linear in T.) This LMI condition may be rewritten
as
a ( D LM D R - &T) < 3 (5.2)
where
D L ± ( I + <%)-* Dt (5.3)
d r ^ d ~ i ( i + G 2ry < (5.4)
r = j ( i + G3 ~*Gm { I + G 2r) ~ * (5.5)
CH APTER 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R ESTIM ATO R 65
Following the development presented in [KLH98], the constraint given by (5.2) may
be rewritten as the LMI
D l M D r - pT
31
0
> 0 (5.6)
d lm d r - pr
P I
0
Note that, since M is not square, the term [DLM.DR —BT] must be padded with zeros
for this LMI to be constructed. It is now required to take advantage of the affine
relationship of M ( 7 , T ) with respect to T . To reveal the affine linear dependence on
T, the LFT description of the transfer function from disturbance force to estimation
error as given by (4.64) may be expressed as
M = M q + M i T M% (5.7)
where
Pu P\2
Mo = (5.8)
I [I 0}P2l I[I 0]P 22
---- 1
1
r -1
0
Mi = i(0 /]P S1 f[0 I \P n (5.9)

II
- I
By applying this representation of M to (5.6), the LMI can be transformed into
Q + YTZ + (VTZy > 0 (5.10)
CH APTER 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R E ST IM A T O R 66
where
D l M 0D r — fiT
31
0
Q = (5.11)
D l M qD r — 3T
31
0
D M
Y = Z = 0 Mo D r (5.12)
0
The LMI given by (5.10) will have a solution T if the two conditions
> o, z m-LQZ*-L~ > o (5.13)
are satisfied [SGI97]. By using the fact that Q may be expressed as an affine function
of 3, Q = Qo -F 3Q\.
D l M oD r —r
0
o o
Qo — J • Q i= r ■ (5.14)
D l M qD r —r
0
0 0
the projection constraints (5.13) may be expanded to
31 + ( F y Y^-Q qY - mFY ^j > 0. 31 + ( F z Z T ^ Q Z ' - F z ) > 0 (5.15)
where
Fy = F y ± ( Y - Q 0Y ±my * . F z = F% = ( z * xQZ*x *)"" (5.16)
The m in im u m value of /? subject to these constraints is determined from an eigenvalue
calculation as
Anin = max |m a x (R e (a* ( - F y Y ^ Q qY ^* F y^j } ) ,
max (R e {a* ( f z Z '^ Q Z * x 'F z ) } ) } (5.17)
C H A P TE R 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R E STIM A TO R 67
From this 3mm, a minimizing Q may be constructed as Q = Qo + 3minQi. Corre
sponding to this new 3mia a new estim ator which satisfies (5.10), denoted as T M, may
be calculated as
T M= R Y * T Z m(Z T Z * )-1 (5.18)
where R is any arbitrary positive definite m atrix such that
T = [ Y R Y 9 + Q ]_1 > 0 (5.19)
The resulting algorithm which generates this new estim ator produces a less con
servative bound on the estimation error. The algorithm consists of two repeated
steps which alternate between 1.) solving for 3 via (5.1) with T fixed and 2.) solving
for 3min and via (5.17) and (5.18) with the D and G scaling matrices fixed. It
should also be noted th at the 3min computed from (5.17) is not guaranteed to be a
global minimum. Each minimization is convex in either T or D and G, but not in
both. Due to the convexity of the individual minimizations, this solution procedure is
monotonic, and is guaranteed to result in the same (at the very least) or better robust
performance than th at given by the nominal estimator. There may exist, however,
other valid estim ator matrices th a t may give better performance.
This analysis and estimator synthesis was carried out in two examples on the
reference rotor models using the MATLAB script file eyumusb. m. The results are
presented in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Four error bound curves are plotted in each of these
figures. The nominal maximized estim ation error (no uncertainty) is given by ej,U(.
The error bound produced by the n analysis step of Chapter 3 is given by eyu2. Use of
the new synthesized estimator, T M, will result in a performance error bound given by
eyu3. The new estim ator offers improvements over the nominal estim ator of less than
ten percent, over the analyzed frequency range as observed in the plots. A fourth
error bound, eVu4, can also be computed and plotted as a check which represents the
CHAPTER 5. CO NSTRU CTING A B E T T E R ESTIM A TO R 68
0 . 0 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude
(in) l e "05
le-06
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.1: Estim ated response, maximized error, robust performance error and min
imized robust performance error. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor
measurements.
use of the synthesized estim ator, on the nominal and true plant. This error bound in
computed using the maximum singular value calculation
eym = ^r(H (T #1)) (5.20)
If one had theoretical access to the true model of the plant, then use of the synthesized,
robust estimator, T ^, to produce the estimate of the unmeasurable response would
be expected to yield inferior performance, as is confirmed in the plots.
5.1.2 S ea rch in g for th e G lobal M in im u m
The synthesized estim ator, T ^, determined by the procedure described in the previous
section is not guaranteed to produce a global minimum for the predicted maximum
error bound. The LMI condition in (5.1) is not linear in both the /z scaling matrices
(the D's and G ’s) and the estimator, T , at the same time. Consequently, the overall
C H APTER 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R ESTIM A TO R 69
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude
(in) le_05
le-06 7000 rpm
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.2: Estimated response, maximized error, robust performance error and min
imized robust performance error. Cross-coupled seal acting at point of estimation.
Compressor rotor, critical point # 2 , three sensor measurements.
problem is not convex and has multiple local minima. This, however, does not prevent
one from guessing at a better estimator. Regardless of the initial choice of estimator
which is used in the proposed estim ator synthesis procedure, the solution will converge
to a local minimum. Different initial guesses may allow the solution to converge upon
a different local minima: j3m;n and T M.
A search was formulated and implemented using a variety of starting guesses for
the initial estimator matrix, as summarized in Table 5.1. The first starting guess
was just a random m atrix whose elements took on values between -1 and 1. Other
starting guesses perturbed the nominal computed value of by a specified amount.
The results of the search are presented in Figure 5.3. A total of 500 iterations were
carried out for each of the three types of initial estimator guesses. These results
are included for one main purpose: to demonstrate the fact th a t better performing
robust estimators may indeed exist, as they do for this particular rotor model example.
C H APTER 5. CONSTRU CTING A B E T T E R E ST IM A T O R 70
search id. Tx Kuess

a -t guess,, = rand[ 1 , 1]
b TVuess = T US, S = [diag{rand[.5,1.5]}]
c Têss = T„S, S = [diag{rand[0,2]}]
Table 5.1: Initial estimator guesses for best estim ator search
Finding them is another m atter. The results shown in Figure 5.3 certainly do not
represent an exhaustive search, but they do imply th a t only marginal improvements
are likely to be gained.

This statem ent must be qualified by noting th at only one speed, for one example
rotor, for one particular level and set of uncertainties was examined. The results do
possibly offer some encouraging and interesting avenues for possible further study.
Additional searches and study in non-linear minimization methods, as they can be
applied to the current problem of interest, are beyond the intended scope of the
present work. It is best not to draw any general conclusions from this result other
than the fact that better performing robust estim ators may exist, affirming the claim
th at the error bound produced by T M, converged upon by the methods presented in
the previous section, is not necessarily the global minimum robust error bound.
C H A P TE R 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R ESTIM ATO R 71
0.0004 --- r----i-- ;—i—i—r~r- i i i i i i t i| i i i i i i rr

eVu2(MA(M(T»)
0.00035 - eyu3(MA(M(TM)))
—*------
?*l------ --------- — — — — — — — — —
0.0003 -
Error o eyu<j. Tgueaajj —r»nd(—1. 1]
Bound 0.00025 - ° eVu*: T«“—= T“s- 5 = [di»R{rand[.5. I.S]}]
(in) * ^yuc: T*««" =TmS. S = tdias{rand[0. 2]}]
0 .0 0 0 2 - -
eyttl(F(H(T)))
0.00015
00 .00001
001 * 1 * * * * ' 11 * 1 1 1 1 *11 ^ * ‘ * * 1 1 11
1 10 100 1000
Number of Initial Guesses
Figure 5.3: Search for global minimum error bound by random choice of estimator.
Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor measurements, 5200 rpm.
5.2 M ak in g U se o f Speed V ariations
Response estim ation under the condition of constant speed was assumed and stated
early-on in this work in Chapter 1. Many industrial machine installations are often
intended to operate for many days, even years, at one single operating speed, if at
all possible. If, however, one considers the benefit of collecting measurements at
speeds other than the operating speed, it may be deemed acceptable to introduce an
occasional speed variation into the routine operation of the machine. This section
formulates the estimation problem to take advantage of such speed variations and
evaluates the benefits.
5 .2 .1 A S in g le (O ccasional) Speed D ip
A reasonable implementation of additional response measurement collections could
be to invoke an “occasional” speed dip. of a specified magnitude or percentage of the
current operating speed. The word occasional is certainly a relative term: should the
speed dip occur hourly? Daily? Weekly? The frequency with which a speed dip is
executed would depend upon a number of issues. It would obviously depend upon the
particular application and upon the feasibility and consequences of the speed change,
in term s of useful and required machine output. How quickly the previous estimate of
the steady-state synchronous response is expected to degrade to unacceptable levels
is also a factor.
The collection of a set of measurements at a single additional speed, due to a
particular distribution of synchronous forces, can be incorporated into the transmis-
C H APTER 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E T T E R ESTIM ATO R 73
sibility m atrix expression for the response as
(5.21)
where the assumed frequency dependance of the synchronous forcing vector has been
subsumed into the model for the plant. The signals ym2 are the measurements col
lected at the new and temporary speed. The matrices P mdl and P md2 are submatrices
of a now larger transmissibility matrix from disturbance force to measurable response.
It is expected th at it would contain more information, in some sense, regarding the
influence of this disturbance force than ju st Pm ^ alone. Using the same procedure
presented in Chapter 3, a singular value decomposition can be applied.
(5.22)
where V = VnuI, (5.23)
such that VTOW now provides an orthonormal basis of the row space of P md and I ’nuii
provides an orthonormal basis for the nullspace. The nullspace of P md = is
now smaller, in the sense that it has lost some directions, than the nullspace of just
Pmdj - Recall th at the decomposition was performed on just P ^ , in the constant
speed case. The nominal estimator is given by, as before,
(5.24)
where
md »row row (5.25)
Maximizing the transmissibility matrix
H = P ud- [T P mJ (5.26)
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude Sy
(in)v le-05 (n o s p e e d d ip )
le-06 5200 rpm
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.4: Maximized estim ation error and estimation error with one 5% speed dip
at each frequency of evaluation. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 , three sensor
measurements.
from disturbance force to estim ation error produces an estim ation error bound for
this estim ator, again for fa subject to
\fd \2 = \^dfd \2 < 1 (5-27)
The MATLAB script file eyuspma.m, included in Appendix E, was created for this
analysis. The bounds shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5 show th a t the maximized estima
tion error bound for the estim ators designed with a five percent speed dip are clearly
superior to the constant speed case. The bounds presented in these plots assume
perfect knowledge of the plant, thus they represent optim al estim ator performance.
5.2 .2 M o d e l U n certa in ty
An accounting for model uncertainty produces some some interesting results regard
ing the use of speed dips to improve the estimation of the unmeasurable response.
C H APTER 5. CO NSTRU CTING A B E T T E R E STIM A TO R
0.01
0.001
6 yu (no sp eed d ip )
0.0001
Magnitude
le-05
(in)
le-06 7000 rpm
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.5: Maximized estimation error and estimation error with one 5% speed dip
at each frequency of evaluation. Compressor rotor, critical point # 2 . two sensor
measurements.
A structured singular value analysis was carried out. as developed and dem onstrated
for the constant speed case in Chapter 4. on the 3-bearing rotor reference model
employing a single speed dip at each frequency of evaluation. The results are pre
sented in Figure 5.6. The level of parameter uncertainty used was again that which
is summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. This plot shows th at the robust performance
error bound is not necessarily any better than th at which resulted for the constant
speed case, particularly in the region of the operating speed. At low frequencies,
the additional speed is actually detrimental to the error bound prediction. The un
certainty in the mode shapes directly influences the output measurements, which is
evident from the equations (4.26)-(4.31), and is most likely responsible for producing
this behavior. The new collection of measurements obtained at the additional speed
essentially allows for an additional point-of-entry for uncertainty to enter the model.
This additional uncertainty clearly has the capability to interact with the previous
C H A P TE R 5. CONSTRUCTING A B E TTE R ESTIM ATO R 76
0.01---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude
/- x le-Oo
(in)
le-06
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.6: Influence of model uncertainty on the maximized estimation error with
one 5% speed dip at each frequency of evaluation. Three-bearing rotor, critical point
# 3 . three sensor measurements.
uncertainty sources to allow the fj. analysis to find a larger worst case error bound.
The study and understanding of this behavior presents an interesting area for fur
ther study, but is not pursued any further in this discussion. Clearly, the introduction
of a speed dip has the potential to reflect a better measure of the character of the
loads in the estimator. However, the presence of plant uncertainty complicates the
evaluation of this added information and so places a premium on the accurate plant
identification.
Chapter 6
R otor Identification
On-line rotor identification is clearly critical to improving the accuracy of the rotor
model used to create and evaluate the critical response estimation. This chapter serves
to identify the im portant issues and present some promising avenues of identification
implementation. Most significantly, it is demonstrated that the state-of-the-art pro
vides a well developed means for identifying the transfer functions that are directly
measurable (P mc). but provides essentially no mechanism for extrapolating the model
to other required transfer functions (P uc and Pud). Two potential solutions to the
extrapolation problem are developed and investigated within the following discussion.
6.1 O verview
The particular and specific issue of on-line rotor identification has been addressed sur
prisingly little in the current literature. Some of the the first to report on the use of
modal testing on rotating machinery were Nordmann [Nor84], Marscher [Mar89] and
Muszvnzka, et al. [MBF93] [Mus96] but they do not fully address all the difficulties
associated with this type of testing. Ewins. et al. [BER96] [SE96] do address some
aspects of applying modal testing to rotating machinery by extending conventional
77
C H A P TE R 6. R O TO R ID EN TIFIC ATIO N 78
structural modal identification methods [Ewi84]. An investigation of some candi
date identification algorithms specifically for use with rotating machinery has been
contributed by Zhong [Zho97].
Real-time, continuous, on-line rotor identification requires specific mechanical
hardware which can provide the necessary input and output signals to and from
the rotor. Ideally, a rotor must be equipped with a certain number of sensors and
actuators along the length of the shaft. In contrast to other bearing systems, mag
netic bearings can provide this needed measurement environment. For a machine
already equipped with magnetic bearings, there is no need to justify' the cost of ad
ditional hardware required to implement the identification capability - it is already
in place. Many industrial magnetic bearing installations employ a digital controller,
making all the desired signals readily' available. At the most, investment in addi
tional computational capability may be required in order to perform the estim ation
and identification calculations. This represents a much smaller relative cost th an for
the design and installation of mechanical hardware. This, in general, is how magnetic
bearings can greatly facilitate the ultim ate implementation of the critical response
estimation.
The use of modal parameters to represent a rotor is a generally' accepted and reli
able modeling technique which has been employed in the preceding chapters. W ithin
the context of rotor identification, the strategy in selecting a model form at should
provide the capability to identify model parameters, which can in turn be used to
extract more accurate unmeasurable transmissibility matrices from the m odel (i. e.,
the estim ator, T.) So, in choosing m odal parameters for the model form at, the in
vestigation of the field of experimental modal analysis becomes one obvious choice.
The physical parameters of bearing stiffness and damping are, of course, also of sig
nificance. Experimental modal analysis can also be used to identify such physical
CH APTER 6. R O T O R IDENTIFICATION 79
parameters.
6.2 E x p erim en tal M odal A n a ly sis
Modal testing is based upon analytical modal modeling which uses natural frequen
cies and damping factors (the eigenvalues) and mode shapes (the eigenvectors) to
describe a linear system. Numerous methods and variations of experimental modal
analysis have emerged which continue to address and improve the implementation
[LW94] [LJP91] [Yas92] [LLL95] [LL96], mostly for static structural modal analysis
applications. Conventional modal analysis asserts several basic assumptions about
the dynamic system being analyzed:
• The rotor is assumed to be linear. The response of the rotor can be repre
sented by the sum of the individual responses each acting alone. In the field of
rotordvnamics this is generally a valid assumption.
• The rotor is assumed to be time invariant. While it has been posed that the rotor
system can change over time (this is the underlying motivation for performing
the identification) these changes are assumed to occur slowly such that the rotor
is not changing during the actual identification process.
• The rotor is observable. W ith a given set of force actuators and sensors, a rotor
is usually fully observable given that enough d a ta is collected at a variety of
frequencies and locations.
One additional conventional assumption is th at the structure is expected to follow
the rule of reciprocity - the transfer function from a point a to point b is the same as
the transfer function from b to a. For spinning rotors, however, this assumption is not
C H APTER 6. ROTO R IDENTIFICATION 80
always valid. The reason for this is that the stiffness and damping matrices which rep
resent rotors with gyroscopics, cross-couplings (from bearings, seals, aerodynamics,
etc.) or internal friction are not symmetric. Symmetry in the system matrices leads
to a symmetric formulation of the frequency response function matrix, of which many
modal analysis algorithms take advantage. The gyroscopic and other cross-coupled
terms within the rotor effectively split the eigenvalues of the original decoupled planar
systems. Systems which exhibit strong gyroscopic stiffening will result in significant
eigenvalue splitting and shifting. Butcher, et al. [BER96] and Zhong [Zho97] provide
a more complete formulation.
6 .2 .1 F requency D om ain M eth o d s
In the frequency domain, the relationship between the frequency-response function
measurements and the modal parameters can be represented by the expression
(6 .1)
where ^ is a matrix if the modal vectors and L is a m atrix of the modal participation
vectors. Some modal parameter estimation algorithms have been formulated directly
from (6 . 1 ), but as suggested previously, the conditions of a spinning rotor may not
perm it the conventional formulation.
A more general development can been adopted which employs general m atrix
polynomials. The measured frequency response function can be matched to a model
which consists of a ratio of two polynomials

n
m ( 6 .2 )
C H A P TE R 6. R O TO R IDENTIFICATION 81
The general solution strategy is to use the measured frequency response functions
to solve for the coefficients of the polynomials. The roots of the denominator will
yield the natural frequencies and damping ratios. The numerator coefficients provide
a means to determine the modal participation factors and mode shapes. Using poly
nomials in this manner amounts to applying a curve fitting algorithm to the data in
order to identify the modeled coefficients of the transfer function.
Curve fitting a model to measured transfer functions is a common strategy within
the field of system identification and is not a method restricted only to modal analysis
applications. Many other applications have developed and made use of this capability
[SK63] [GH94]. It has been specifically applied to modal analysis for modal parameter
extraction via the well established Rational Fraction Polynomial method. Richardson
and Formetti [RF82] [RF85], Carcaterra and D’Ambrogio [CD92] and Friswell and
Penny [FP93] and have all contributed to the development of this particular method.
The general procedure involves constructing an error given by
e< = H(jUi) - H(jUi) (6.3)

m
= H (M ) - ^ ------- (6.4)
Jfc=0
n m
ei = y~l a k(jui)kH { j u ) - ^ 2 P k ( M ) k (6-5)
k= 0 k-0
where H (ju i) is the frequency response function measured at N different frequencies.
H(ju>i) is the modeled transfer function composed of the ratio of two polynomials.
The identification objective is to find a set of coefficients,
d = < * n -l ' *• <*0 1 ( 6 -6 )
which minimizes this error. The highest order denominator coefficient, a n, can always
be set equal to 1 . Using a least squares formulation, the 2-norm of e is minimized as
C H APTER 6. R O T O R IDENTIFICATION 82
d = arg min(|e|2) = argm in (6.7)

"& t?
The two most likely candidate types of excitation signal for use with frequency
response measurements are the swept sine and the periodic chirp. The swept sine
signal uses a frequency th a t is an integer multiple of the FFT frequency increment.
Sufficient time is allowed between increments to allow transient responses to decay.
By allowing the transient signals to die out, a very high signal-to-noise ratio can be
achieved.
Alternatively, a periodic chirp is created by sweeping a sine signal through a
frequency range during a single sample period. Test measurement time is substantially
reduced at the slight expense of additional measurement noise. The advantage to both
of these methods is th a t the frequency and amplitude content of the measurement
and response signals can be carefully controlled (assuming the appropriate equipment
is installed) to produce a very reliable and reproducible measurement.
6 .2.2 T im e D o m a in M eth od s
A time domain model which parallels the the MIMO frequency-domain polynomial
representation of (6 .2 ) is given by
m n
( 6 .8 )
fc=0
Note that, if the excitation signals are limited to the use of impluse-response data
such as a free decay signal, the forcing function can be assumed to be zero and the
identification simplifies to
m
(6.9)
fc=0
C H A P TE R 6. R O TO R ID EN TIFIC ATIO N 83
The time domain methods identified by Complex Exponential [LDL93], Least Squares
[Hsi76] and Backward ARMA are all applicable to rotor systems. The Backward
ARMA method is promoted by Zhong [Zho97] as the most suitable m ethod for ro
tor identification given the expected measurement environment of the typical rotor
supported in magnetic bearings.
Using the free response signals from an imposed impulse force, the general formula
tion strategy involves extracting the z-domain poles as determined from the solutions
to
anz n + a „ _ iz n—1 + ctxz + 1 = 0 ( 6 . 10 )
for n = 2iV —1 parameters. These z-domain poles are related to the frequency domain
eigenvalues by
ln(zi)
( 6 . 11 )
At
Recognizing that the response can be expressed as
ai
x(k) = x{k — 1 ) x (k — 2 ) x(k — Tl) ( 6 . 12 )
o tT
x(k) = Hp (6.13)
the coefficients can be determined from a least squares type of solution
(6.14)
From these coefficients the natural frequencies and modal dampings are determined.
If enough sensor measurements are available, the eigenvectors are determ ined from
= H Z T [ZZT]~l (6.15)
where
_0 ^1 ~r
Z1 *\ ’' ' *i
-0 ,.1 ~r
2 _ z2 "2 *2
( 6 . 16 )
-0
2JV ,1 „r
Z ’ ' ’ ~2JV
and Zi is the ith z-domain pole of the system and r < 2N — 1 . In order to determine
the value of the mode shape (eigenvector) at any particular point a measurement is
required at that point. In order to reconstruct a complete and accurate mode shape,
a measurement is required at every node or station point. The formulation can be
extended to include the discrete measurements of the forces. f{k). The Backward
ARMA methodology is a variation of this type of time-domain identification and
employs an over-specification of the system order to achieve better performance. The
excess “noise" modes are identified and truncated using a minimum norm solution.
Time-domain measurement methods more often make use of transient responses.
Impact excitation signals and step relaxation signals are two candidate signal types.
An impact force is created by applying a pulse or shock which lasts a very small
portion of the sample period. Impact signals have gained popularity in static struc
tural dynamic testing mainly because of the freedom with which the impact can
be applied (e. g.. through a hand-held instrumented hammer.) The step relaxation
signal is induced by releasing an applied static load which has been applied to the
rotor. A magnetic bearing can very effectively apply either type of excitation signals.
Transient signals can also be induced by other means, such as a sudden speed change.
6 .2 .3 M od al P aram eters
The modal parameters are generally extracted in a two stage process which first
extracts the eigenvalues, which are composed of the natural frequency and m odal
C H APTER 6. R O TO R ID ENTIFICATIO N 85
damping information. The mode shapes and associated scaling is extracted in a
second operation. Whether using a time-domain or frequency-domain technique, once
the coefficients of the difference equations or frequency response functions have been
found, the modal parameters are typically found by a companion m atrix approach.
For a transfer function specified by

m
(6.17)
it is typical to assume a strictly proper transfer function in which the order of nu
merator is one less than that of the denominator, m = n — 1 . The companion matrix
formulation assembles the coefficients of the identified polynomial into the state-space
system
(6.18)
(6.19)
for
0 !n -l Q n —2 —Q0
1 0 0
A = 0 1 0 ( 6 . 20 )
0 0 1
B = G — 0m /?m_! • • • 0Q ( 6 . 21 )
0
The natural frequencies and modal damping ratios are determined from the eigenval
ues of the companion m atrix. .4. The mode shape information is contained within
the matrices B and C.
Potentially, a measure of the mode shapes can be extracted from the limited set
of measurements by making some assumptions regarding the model. If the nominal
rotor model is believed to be very close to the actual rotor, then it may be safe to
assume that the true mode shapes of the actual plant are fairly close to the modeled
mode shapes. These nominal modes may then represent a reasonable vector basis for
reconstructing the actual mode shapes. In addition, the mode shape error is expected
to be very small a t the measurement points, and larger a t points farther away from
the sensors, but increasing only in a manner which is physically realistic ( i. e.. the
mode shape and the error must be smooth, not discontinuous.) An error of this form
was proposed and implemented in the uncertainty analysis in Chapter 4. The mode
shape measurements at the ns sensor locations are denoted by
$* m = ( 6 . 22 )
■ns
If the nominal, assumed-nearly-correct mode shapes are used as a basis, an approxi
mation of the true mode shapes can be constructed as
(6.23)
where the m atrix S controls the contribution of each individual nominal mode shape
to the linear combination. In this manner, the measurements must satisfy
$ m = Cm, $ nS (6.24)
The selection m atrix Cm, retrieves the elements of the individual mode shapes which
correspond to the measurement locations. The m atrix S is computed as
5 = (Cm, $ n)+$m (6.25)
CH APTER 6. R O T O R ID ENTIFICATIO N 87
The pseudoinverse will make sense as long as the number of mode shapes to be
estimated is greater than the number of sensors.
While this may at first appear to be a sound method for reconstructing an estim ate
of the true mode shape, it is fairly easy to generate an example which produces very
poor and unpredictable results. From a single set of measurements, the matrices
and S simply do not contain sufficient information to correctly reconstruct the
mode shape. Indeed other ad-hoc methods can be derived which use both the sensor
measurements and the nominal mode shapes to reconstruct the true mode shapes.
However, it is really not necessarily an appropriate and foregone conclusion th a t the
true mode shapes axe actually very close to the nominal modeled mode shapes. If
they are not close, then any method that uses just a few sensor measurements, ad-hoc
or otherwise, will likely produce useless results. Much of the current literature asserts
th at the only way to produce an accurate measured mode shape is to assemble a
nearly full column of the frequency response m atrix (z. e., measurements at many
locations along the rotor.) [Kab90] [BER96] [Har96]. This, however, may render
specific mode shape identification quite impractical for real operating rotors.
Assuming an accurate measure of the mode shapes has been obtained by some
means, the correct scaling of the mode shapes remains unknown. It is generally
accepted that the identified mode shapes should be normalized via the modeled mass
m atrix such that
= Mmn « I (6.26)
The modeled finite-element mass m atrix is generally accepted as being the most
accurate (easily measurable or calculated) and consistent (does not change or drift
over time) components of the model. This normalization also provides a means to
check orthogonality. The cross orthogonality terms of M mn are expected to be much
less than the generalized mass term of each mode. Values of off-diagonal term s of
C H APTER 6. ROTO R ID ENTIFICATIO N 88
Mmn of up to one-tenth of the magnitude of the main diagonal terms is many times
considered acceptable. Results of experimentation very rarely achieved a value of zero
for the off-diagonal terms.
The coefficients of the measured frequency-response transfer functions or impulse-
response difference equations can be identified with near arbitrary accuracy. The main
contributing limit to accuracy being provided by the resolution of the measurement
instrumentation. For an eigenvalue which exhibits a large damping ratio, it can be
more difficult since the measured transfer function may exhibit very slight differences
for a not-so-slight shift in the eigenvalue. Another issue is that of sensor placement.
Some sensor locations may not be able to detect any motion for a particular mode (if is
right at or very close to a modal node point.) Along the same lines, the actuator may
not be in the best location to excite a particular mode. But for a rotor supported with
magnetic bearings in which there are multiple sensor locations and multiple actuator
locations, the likelihood of not being able to excite and observe any particular mode
is greatly reduced.
The difficulty of identifying heavily damped modes of a dynamic structure is an
issue of concern noted occasionally within the literature. Some identification methods
claim to be more effective than others at exciting and identifying these modes. This
issue really does not present a significant impact on the objective of unmeasurable
response estimation. The uncertainty associated with a heavily damped mode has
much less influence on the response prediction than a lightly dam ped mode. Heavily
damped modes become more “predictable” and have a lesser impact on the syn
chronous response of the rotor - this is obviously the case since overdamped modes
axe commonly truncated from a model which is being used to evaluate steady state
and synchronous response. The plot of Figure 4.7 demonstrated this characteristic
by exhibiting large peaks in the estimation error bound in the vicinity of the un
CHAPTER 6. R O T O R IDENTIFICATION 89
damped/very lightly damped frequencies. It is the lightly damped modes th at will
always influence the synchronous response of the rotor and it is these same modes
that will be excitable and observable in any identification efforts that axe performed.
6.2.4 M o d el E x tra p olation
All the current literature regarding system identification presents a means of con
structing a model whose outputs match the measured response, ym, for a known set
of inputs, uc. This is the transfer function P mc. This problem is always presented
without any reference to any a priori model of the system. This is not adequate for
the current identification problem. It is necessary to extrapolate - from the model
that is created by direct measurements to one th at provides a different output (the
unmeasurable response, yu) due to some other collection of inputs (fd.) For estima
tion, P U(i is the needed transfer function (and P uc.) This necessarily implies th at some
a priori model must be employed and adjusted until its behavior matches that of the
identified model. The internal states of the identified model must also be matched
to the real system, not only the outputs. The real problem lies in that this adjust
ment is generally not unique and a poor choice of adjustm ent parameters may lead
to a perfect fit to the experimental data but an imperfect prediction of the required
unmeasurable transfer functions.
6.3 A n A ltern a tiv e P aram eter Space
Since direct mode shape identification promises to present significant obstacles, an
alternative identification strategy which will allow more reliable interpolation of the
model from the measurable responses to the unmeasurable is needed. One candidate
alternative, which is potentially much more physically intuitive than dealing with
C H A P TE R 6. R O TO R ID ENTIFICATIO N 90
mode shapes, is to identify the likely locations and/or components of the physical
rotor system that are contributing error to the model. These components could be
aerodynamic effects, seal effects or a variable disk or journal interference fits - these
are features or conditions which may not have an accurate accounting within the
model and are usually difficult to precisely identify. These effects represent a fully
different set of parameters. It is proposed th at these effects can be represented by a
local feedback mechanism which can be represented by an LFT.
The state-space equations for the nominal rotor model with the addition of some
uncharacterized disturbance forces can be expressed as
z = A 0z + B 0utic 4- Bfc/jt (6.2 r)
Vm = C 0mz (6.28)
yk = C kz (6.29)
The vector f k represents the suspected uncharacterized disturbance forces and B k is
a model of how they enter the plant. The vector yk is the response at the disturbance
locations. It is proposed that the response at these locations and the disturbances
are related through feedback as
fk = Ky* (6.30)
The strategy is to compute a controller, K , which minimizes the error between the
actual (identified) response and the corresponding measurable response computed
by the nominal model. Figure 6 .1 illustrates the construction of the identification
CHAPTER 6. R O T O R IDENTIFICATION 91
problem. The state-space model for this system is

t r y
f
M
0
A 0 uc
+ < > (6.31)
M \
0 A B Oc B*
\
fk J
eVm 1 Cm Du D 12 Ur
>+ (6.32)
Vk J 0 o D 2i D 22 fk
\ /
fk = K yk (6.33)
The matrices A, B c and C 0m represent the state-space realization of the identified
rotor (e. g., in companion form.)
Any suitable m ethod for designing the feedback controller may be used - Hi,
etc. The identification process is a m atter of identifying parameters (sources of model
error.) constructing a LFT and then turning the “crank” of a chosen controller design
algorithm. If the controller is designed properly, the system defined by the LFT
P m c = ^ , ( P m c ,K ) (6.34)
will be matched to the measured data.
P m c = P me = F u ( P m c, K ) (6.35)
If the param eters axe chosen appropriately, then it is expected that the internal
states of the system will also be matched to the measured plant, not just the output
measurements. This then provides a justification for using this new model to examine
the response of the unmeasurable points, according to the procedures outlined in the
previous chapters. This method does not ignore (as all other currently available
identification methods do) but takes advantage of existing well developed models of
the rotor, bearings, seals, etc. If the particular choice of parameters was chosen poorly
(e. g., assuming the wrong location of a disturbance effect,) the designed controller, K ,
will still force a m atch between the response of the modeled and measured plants. In
C H APTER 6. RO TO R ID EN TIFIC ATIO N 92
-*■ mc
Vm nominal
model
-*• me
Vm identified
plant
Figure 6.1: Model identification block diagram
this case, however, it is less likely th a t the subsequent use of this controller-corrected
model to construct transfer functions to and from other points, (points other than
th at which were used to perform the measurement.) will be accurate. While the
measurable outputs may be matched, the internal states of the model, from which
the unmeasurable responses are computed, may not match the actual rotor.
This method has several advantages over the specific modal param eter identifica
tion schemes. One is that it effectively shrinks the param eter space to a more rea
sonable size. Mode shape identification simply involves too many degrees of freedom,
for which many sensor measurements are required to make a correct identification.
Another advantage is that this alternative parameter space is defined in terms of real,
physical effects - interference fits, aerodynamic behavior, etc. While most everyone
can understand what a mode shape or eigenvector represents, understanding its phys
ical significance may not always be clear. An interesting benefit to this m ethod is th at
it can actually produce a scaled measure of the disturbance effect. For example, if
there was an uncertain stiffness and damping acting upon a rotor at known location,
CHAPTER 6. R O TO R IDENTIFICATION 93
the controller design can actually produce a measure of the actual stiffness and damp
ing acting at th at point. This will be the case only if the disturbance effects behave
more-or-less independently (i. e., K must be predominantly diagonal.) In choosing to
identify the rotor in this manner, it is not required in any way to abandon the chosen
modal rotor representation, if it is so desired. N atural frequencies, damping ratios
and mode shapes can all be easily extracted from the identified model. If the model
was identified with the proper parameter space, then the extracted modal parameters
will be an accurate representation of the actual rotor. The identification of this pa
rameter space is a critical step. Given the current state of the art in rotordynamics
modeling, it is expected that the experienced rotordynamicist should be capable of
sensibly identifying the likely sources of uncharacterized disturbance acting upon the
rotor, thus be able to construct a sensibly sized and physically intuitive param eter
space.
By way of example, the above procedure for reconstm cting an estimate of the true
rotor mode shape was demonstrated using the three-bearing reference rotor model.
Suppose that the true rotor contained some dynamics at the thrust bearing end of
the shaft, say due to some coupling interaction. In this example a bearing stiffness of
5.000 lbf/in was added to the model at this location. Only the location of the unknown
spring was assumed to be known. This was the only assumption made in the model
matching process. The actual and identified transfer function from the measurable
inputs (the bearing forces) to the measurable outputs (the sensors) is denoted by Ga-
The transfer function of the nominal model (without the extra spring stiffness) from
and to these same measurable inputs and outputs is denoted by G0- Gm is the closed
loop transfer function of the data-matched model from and to these same inputs
and outputs (Gm = T U(G0,K ).) The transfer function Gm is matched to the actual
(measured and identified) transfer function, Ga, by choice of K . Figures 6.2-6.5 show
C H A P TE R 6. RO TO R ID EN TIFIC ATIO N 94
0.0001
5200 rpm
H G 0)
(n o m in a l m odel)
Gain &(Gm)
le-05 ( d a ta -m a tc h e d m odel)
le-06
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6 .2 : Maximum singular value comparison between nominal and data-matched

transfer functions from measurable inputs (bearings) to measurable outputs (sensors.)
Three-bearing rotor, three sensor measurements.
the results of this simple example. Figure 6.2 shows a noticeable difference between
the data-matched actual transfer function and nominal model transfer function at
frequencies in the vicinity of the operating speed. As shown in Figure 6.4, the
controller synthesis exactly identifies the unknown spring with a stiffness of 5,000
lbf/in. Figure 6.5 suggested very strongly that the resulting data-m atched model can
be reliably used to estimate the response at unmeasurable locations.
CH APTER 6. R O TO R ID ENTIFICATIO N 95
0.0001
le-05
le-06
le-07
Gain l e "08
(in/lbf) le_og
le -1 0
le -1 1
le -1 2
le-13
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.3: Error between the actual and data-m atched transfer functions from mea
surable inputs (bearings) to measurable outputs (sensors.) Three-bearing rotor, three
10000
5000
Gain
(lbf/in)
5200 rpm
1000
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.4: Matching controller transfer function gain. Three-bearing rotor, three
C H APTER 6. R O TO R IDENTIFICATION 96
0.01
0.001
Ull (u sin g d a ta -m a tc h e d m ode!)
0.0001
le-05 5200 rpm
Magnitude
le-06
(in)
le-07
le-08 Vu
le-09
le -1 0
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.5: Unmeasurable response using data-matched transfer function. Three-

bearing rotor, three sensor measurements.
Chapter 7
Conclusions
7.1 R esearch Sum m ary
A procedure has been presented for the construction of an estim ator which has the
capability of predicting the real-time, on-line response of unmeasurable points of an
operating rotor. The estim ator makes use of both the available sensor signals and
as much rotor model information that is available. The resulting response prediction
at the unmeasurable location is much more that just a conventional forced response
calculation - it reflects the response to the actual disturbance force acting on the
actual rotor. If the disturbance force acting upon the actual rotor was fully known,
this problem would be easy. The rotor would, in general, be fully observable. Since
these forces are not fully known, the key step in constructing the nominal estimator
is identifying, via a singular value decomposition, the measurable component of the
unknown disturbance forces acting upon the rotor. These disturbance forces are
not completely unknown. Many disturbance forces exhibit a known and predictable
behavior, such as mass unbalance. Given a model and a predicted bound of the
unknown forces, a fundamental performance limit for the estim ator can be established
97
C H APTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 98
using the methods presented.
Identifying the influence of model error and uncertainty on the performance of the
estimation was a key element to this investigation. The primary tool for accomplishing
this was the structured singular value (p) m atrix function. By applying the output of
a family of uncertain plants, represented by a linear fractional transform ation (LFT).
to the nominal estim ator, a method for establishing a robust performance error bound
on the unmeasurable response was formulated. Satisfactory estim ator performance
was demonstrated with the application of reasonable uncertainties to the natural
frequencies, modal damping ratios and mode shapes.
Several methods of improving estimator performance were also investigated. The
use of additional sensors, at locations other than the points being estim ated was
shown, though not necessarily in all cases, to substantially improve the estim ator per
formance bound. Additional sensors effectively reduce the component of the unknown
disturbance force vector th at is unmeasurable through the sensor measurements. In
the case of robust estim ator performance, a interesting method was dem onstrated for
constructing a better-performing estimator in the face of a given set of model uncer
tainties. This m ethod uses linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) and /j. to converge upon
a robust estim ator which produced an error bound smaller than that for the nominal
estimator. Improvements on the order of ten percent were achieved for the examples
presented. The use of a single speed variation was also investigated as a means of
collecting additional information about the rotor and again effectively reducing the
unmeasurable component if the disturbance force. As one would expect substantial
improvements are realized, but only if the plant is known perfectly. It was demon
strated th at the the used of a speed dip can actually be detrimental to the predicted
error bound in the face of plant uncertainty.
Substantial estim ator performance improvements can be realized if the modeled
C H A P TE R 7. CONCLUSIONS 99
uncertainty can be reduced as much as possible. To achieve this, it is necessary
to perform on-line rotor identification in an effort to construct as good a model of
the rotor as possible. On-line rotor identification has not been an extensive area of
research. An overview of general methods for performing this type of identification
was presented. Developed methods within the fields of experimental modal analysis
and control system identification show promise in accomplishing this task.
The fundamental objectives and accomplishments of the research are summarized
in the following:
• The development of an observer/estim ator synthesis technique. The product of
this synthesis produced a nominal estimator, T , which was used to produce a
nominal estimate of the unmeasurable rotor response: yu = T ym.
• The development of a m ethod for evaluating the estim ator performance. A
means of determining a fundam ental bound on the error, eVti. of the critical
response estimation process under constant speed operating conditions was pre
sented.
• The formulation of a m ethod for evaluating the robust estim ator performance.
The application of structured singular value (y) was successfully applied to the
problem. The manner in which model uncertainly effects the accuracy of the
estim ated response was examined.
• The determination of whether the solution will work for real systems. Examples
were used to demonstrate the efficacy of the solution. The predicted error
bounds are consistently less than 0.0 0 1 inches for all the examples examined,
using reasonable bounds on the model uncertainty and disturbance forces. To
achieve the results th at were presented, model uncertainties on the order of ten
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 100
percent and b etter were required. This is usually achievable, but possibly not
without rotor identification efforts.
These objectives were fully met with the exception of some issues related system
identification. The issue of accurate and reliable rotor identification was exposed as
an important element to the estimation process. It was originally intended th at an
existing identification method could be adapted to the current problem. However,
existing methods provide no mechanism for extrapolating the directly measured and
identified transfer functions to a characterization of other transfer functions th a t are
not directly measurable. Two mechanisms for accomplishing this extrapolation were
proposed and explored. The first, based upon the assumed mode shapes, proved
unsuccessful. The second was based on computing a feedback compensator to the
nominal rotor model. The compensator was designed, using an H0c control synthesis
technique, such th a t the closed-loop system has the same transfer function as th at
measured experimentally. This method was explored only superficially but enough to
demonstrate feasibility.
This work has brought together a number of disciplines - rotordvnamics. modern
and post-modern controls, magnetic bearings, system identification - to realize a
capability in the field of rotordvnamics which has previously not been demonstrated.
The results so far presented show significant promise for actual implementation. In
light of these results, the analyst must either accept the fact that the [identified]
model (and sensor measurements) can be used to perform this unmeasurable response
estimation or, adm it th at rotor modeling is an inadequate and unreliable means of
analysis. In light of the current state-of-the-art in rotordvnamics modeling, most
analysts will probably consider their rotor models to be a very accurate and reliable.
7.2 F uture W ork
The present work has revealed a number of areas which warrant additional investiga
tion and research, First and foremost, there is a substantial amount of benefit to be
realized through experimental validation. Experimental efforts would determine the
realistic extent to which the estimation can be accomplished and the reliability of the
predicted responses. This present effort has laid much of the groundwork required to
implement the estimation on an actual rotor. Minimal additional theoretical effort is
necessary to actually carry this work to the testing phase and implement this process
on an actual rotor, preferably on an experimental test rig, in which the "unmeasur
able" locations axe accessible and measured for validity and error evaluation. Most
of the initial experimental effort is likely to be related to putting in place the data
acquisition and computational apparatus. A number of specific areas of research were
identified that can be investigated within the context of the actual implementation
and testing. Some of these areas require varying amounts of additional theoretical
development.
R otor Identification
Successful identification is a key element in the estimation process in th at it minimizes
model error, which will in turn minimize the unmeasurable response estimation error.
A more detailed investigation of rotor identification within the context of constant
speed rotors supported in magnetic bearings is needed. Some general avenues of iden
tification have been presented in Chapter 6 (experimental modal analysis, H ^ match
ing controller design.) A thorough experimental investigation of this topic would be
very beneficial. Based upon the presented results, it is believed th a t the matching
compensator shows the most promise. The specific identification of uncertain distur
bance components, such as seals, should also be more closely addressed. Additional
methods of system identification may also have m erit. O ther identification methods
such as maximum likelihood estimators [GP77] [SM80] and predictor-error methods
[Lju87] were not explored, but may offer viable alternatives in the identification of
LFT systems.
H arm onic C om p en sation
Once reliable estim ates of unmeasurable rotor locations have been established, it is
then possible to use the magnetic bearings to control and minimize the response
at these locations. This is an extension to currently available adaptive vibration
control (AVC.) Currently, this capability allows the magnetic bearings to minimize
the response of a rotor but only at a measured rotor locations. This represents one
of the main potential uses of accurate unmeasurable response estimation. For the
examples examined, the predicted maximum estim ation errors were small enough
(less than 0.001” .) This is sufficiently smaller than the actual response and so it
is believed that the estim ate can be reliably used for active response compensation.
This dissertation has addressed the observability of the critical unmeasurable points.
Harmonic compensation will address the issue of controllability of these critical points.
Speed V ariations
A closer inspection of the effects of speed dips on the estimation process may be
warranted. It was shown that the use of sensor measurements collected at different
speeds does not necessarily improve the performance of the estimator when model
uncertainty taken into account. A more clear understanding of this interaction may
allow the speed information to be fully beneficial. The benefits of using speed dips
in the identification step could also be investigated, especially for rotors with strong
C H APTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 103
speed dependent gyroscopics and stiffness and damping coefficients. Based upon the
results presented, however, it more likely th at the use of speed dips will not be a
fruitful avenue of investigation.
G y ro sco p ics, C ro ss-co u p lin g
The extension of this analysis to a two-plane, coupled rotor model is necessary- to
account for rotors with gyroscopics and other cross-couplings. This does not represent
a substantial effort but will result in a larger and slightly more complicated model,
increasing computational time. A two-plane cross-coupled state-space rotor model is
constructed as
(7.1)
0 Br
(7.2)
The m atrix G c introduces gyroscopic and other cross-coupled effects. Twice as many
sensor measurements would be collected, ym = {y™' }, and two response estimates
at each unmeasurable location would be produced,
Vux
Vu =
—
>= T < (7.3)
Vuy
No fundamental assumptions have been made in this dissertation th at would prevent
an extended formulation of this nature. Due to the difficulties encountered with large
uncertainty blocks in the structured singular value uncertainty analysis, it may be
necessary to investigate improvements in the numerical conditioning of the uncer
tainty analysis for large models with large uncertainty blocks.
B e tte r ro b u s t e s tim a to rs
It is also possible th a t progress could be made with regards to finding a global min
imum robust error bound by developing methods to search for a optimum estim ator
matrix, T M. Although the present work showed very limited benefits to searching for
a better estimator, this work does not represent an exhaustive investigation into this
issue. At the very least, a more extensive random search, as was only rudimentarily
demonstrated in C hapter 5, could be implemented. Alternatively, it may be possible
to search for a lower bound on the robust error. This would provide an indication as
to how much improvement is possible.
Bibliography
[AE71] Astrom, K. J. and P. Evkhoff, “System Identification-A Survey." Auto-

matica, v 7. pl23-162, 1971.
[API95] American Petroleum Institute, “Centrifugal Compressors for Petroleum.

Chemical and Gas Service Industries,” API Standard 617. 6 th Edition,
1995.
[BDG95] Balas, G. J., J. C. Doyle., K. Glover, A. Packard and R. Smith,

analvsis and Synthesis Toolbox User’s Guide,” Mathworks. Inc.. 1995.
[BGF94] Boyd. S., L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron and V. Balakrishnan, “Linear Matrix

Inequalities in Systems and Control Theory,” SIAM Books, Philadelphia.
1994.
[BER96] Butcher, I.. D. J. Ewins and D. A. Robb, “Modal Testing of Rotating

Structures: Difficulties, Assumptions and Practical Approach,” IMechE
Conference Transactions, Sixth International Conference on Vibrations
in Rotating Machinery, p 539-562, 1996.
[CD92] Carcaterra, A. and W. D’Ambrogio, “An Iteration Technique for the

Enhancement of the Rational Fraction Polynomial Modal Identification
Procedure.” Proceedings of the 17th International Seminar on Modal
Analysis, p 1115-1129, 1992.
[Chi93] Childs, D., “Turbomachinery Rotordynamics,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1993.
[CS92] Chiang, R. Y. and M. G. Safonov, “Robust Control Toolbox User’s

Guide,” Mathworks, Inc., 1992.
[DPZ91] Doyle, J., A. Packard and K. Zhou. “Review of LFTs LMIs and fj.”
Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, p
1227-1232, 1991.
[Ehr92] Ehrich, F. F., “Handbook of Rotordynamics,” McGraw Hill, Inc., 1992.
[Ewi84] Ewins, D. J., “Modal Testing: Theory and Practice,” Research Studies
Press, 1984.
105
B IB L IO G R A P H Y 106
[Fri8 6 ] Friedland, B., “Control System Design: An Introduction to State Space

Methods,” McGraw Hill, Inc., 1986.
[FP93] Friswell, M. I. and J. E. T. Penny, “The Choice of Orthogonal Polyno

mial in the Rational Fraction Polynomial M ethod,” Modal Analysis: the
International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, v
8 , n 3, p 257-262. 1993.
[GA94] Gahinet, P. and P. Apkarian, “Hoo Design with Pole Placement Con
straints: an LMI Approach,” International Journal of Robust and Non
linear Control, v 4, p 421-448, 1994.
[GNL95] Gahinet, P.. A. Nemirovski, A. J. Laub and M. Chilali. “LMI Control

Toolbox User's Guide,” Mathworks, Inc., 1995.
[GH94] Gahier, C. and R. Herzog, “Identification of Magnetic Bearing Systems.”
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Magnetic Bear
ings, p 293-298, 1994.
[GP77] Goodwin, G. C. and R. L. Payne, “Dynamic System Identification: Ex
periment design and D ata Analysis,” Academic Press, 1977.
[GL95] Green, M. and D. J. N. Limebeer. “Linear Robust Control,” Prentice-

Hall, Inc.. 1995.
[Har96] Harris, C. M.. “Shock and Vibration Handbook,” McGraw-Hill, 1996.
[HMK97] Hope. R. W.. T. Mivaji and C. R. Knospe, "Adaptive Vibration Control

of Magnetic Bearing Equipped Industrial Turbomachinery,” Proceedings
of MAG ’97, Industrial Conference and Exhibition on Magnetic Bear
ings, p 251-260, 1997.
[Hop94] Hope, R. W. “Adaptive Open Loop Control of Synchronous Rotor Vi
bration Using Magnetic Bearings.” M. S. Thesis, University of Virginia,
1994.
[Hsi76] Hsia, T. C.. “On Least Squares Algorithms for System Param eter Iden
tification,” IE E E Transactions on Automatic Control, p 104-108, 1976.
[Kab90] Kabe, A. M., “Mode Shape Identification and Orthogonalization,” A IA A

Journal, v 28, n 4, p 711-716, 1990.
[Kei93] Keith, F. J., “Implicit Flux Feedback Control for Magnetic Bearings,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, 1993.
[KHF94] Knospe, C. R., R. W. Hope, S. J. Fedigan and R. W. Williams, "New
Results in the Control of Rotor Synchronous Vibration,” Proceedings of
the Fourth International Symposium on Magnetic Bearings, p 119-124,
1994.
B IB L IO G R A P H Y 107
[KHF95] Knospe, C., R. Hope, S. Fedigan and R. Williams, "Experiments in the

Control of Unbalance Response Using Magnetic Bearings,” IE E E /A S M E
Transactions on Mechatronics, v 5, n 4, p 385-400, 1995.
[KLH98] Knospe, C. R., J. D. Lindlau and R. W. Hope, ” Synthesis Techniques

for Robust Adaptive Vibration Control,” Proceedings o f the Sixth Inter
national Symposium on Magnetic Bearings, August 1998.
[KTF97] Knospe, C. R . , S. M. Tamer and S. J. Fedigan, ’’Robustness of Adaptive

R otor Vibration Control to Structured Uncertainty,” Transactions o f the
A SM E, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, v 119,
n 2, p 243-250. 1997.
[LDL93] Leurs, W., F. Deblauwe and F. Lembregts, “Modal Param eter Estim a
tion Based on Complex Mode Indicator Functions,” Proceedings o f the
S P IE 11th International Modal Analysis Conference, v 1923, n 2, p 1035-
1041, 1993.
[LLL95] Lin, R. M., M. K. Lim and K. M. Liew, “Variable Residue Method for
Modal Param eter Estimation,” Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Vibration and Acoustics, v 117, p 392-397, 1995.
[LL96] Lin, R. M. and S. F. Ling, “New Method for Accurate and Consistent
Identification of Modal Param eters,” Journal of Guidance, Control and
Dynam ics, v 19, n 5, p 992-999, 1996.
[LW94] Lindholm, B. E. and R. L. West, “System Identification of Finite Ele

m ent Modeling Parameters Using experimental Spatial Dynamic Model
ing,” Proceedings of the SP IE First International Conference on Vibra
tion Measurements by Laser Techniques: Advances and Applications, v
2358, p 450-462, 1994.
[Lju87] Ljung, L., “System Identification: Theory for the User,” Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1987.
[LJP91] Longman, R. L, J., Juang and M. Phan, “Input and O utput Matrices in
Modal Identification,” Proceedings of the 9th International Modal Anal
ysis Conference, p 1433-1441, 1991.
[Mac63] MacFarlane, A. G. J., “An Eigenvector Solution of the Optimal Linear

Regulator,” Journal of Electronics and Control, v 14, p 643-654, 1963.
[Mac89] Maciejowski, J. M., “Multivariable Feedback Design,” Addison Wesley

Publishing Company, Inc., 1989.
[Mar89] Marscher, W. D., “Analysis and Test of Multistage Pum p “Wet” Criti
cal Speeds,” Proceedings of the 35th S T L E /A S M E Tribology Conference,
1989.
B IB LIO G R A P H Y 108
[Mas91] Maslen, E. H., “Magnetic Bearing Synthesis for Rotating Machinery,"

[Mus96] Muszynska, A., “Dynamics of Anisotropicallv Supported Rotors,” Pro

ceedings o f the 6th International Symposium on Transport Phenomena
and Dynamics o f Rotating Machinery, 1996.
[MBF93] Muszynska. A., D. E. Bentlv, W. D. Franklin, J. W. Grant and P. Gold

man, “Applications of Sweep Frequency Rotating Force Perturbation
Methodology in Rotating Machinery for Dynamic Stiffness Identifica
tion,” Transactions o f the ASME, Journal o f Engineering for Gas Tur
bines and Power, v 115, 1993.
[Nor84] Nordmann, R., “Identification of Modal Param eters of an Elastic Rotor

with Oil Film Bearings,” Transactions of the ASM E, Journal of Vibra
tion Acoustics, Stress and Reliability in Design, v 106, p 107-112, 1984.
[Pac8 8 ] Packard, A. K., “W h at’s New With fi: Structured Uncertainty in Mul
tivariable Control,” Ph.D. Dissertation, 1988.
[Pot6 6 ] Potter, J. E., “M atrix Quadratic Solutions,” SIA M Journal on Applied

Mathematics, v 14, n 3, p 496-501, 1966.
[RF82] Richardson. M. H. and D. L. Formeti, “Param eter Estimation From Fre

quency Response Measurements Using Rational Fraction Polynomials,”
Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis Conference, p 167-
181, 1982.
[RF85] Richardson, M. H. and D. L. Formeti. “Global Curve Fitting of Fre

quency Response Measurements Using the Rational Fraction Polynomial
Method,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Modal Analysis Confer
ence, p 390-397, 1985.
[Rug93] Rugh, W. J., “Linear System Theory,” Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993.
[SM80] Sage, A. P. and J. L. Melsa, “System Identification,” Academic Press,

1971.
[SK63] Sanathanan, C. K. and J. Koerner, “Transfer Function Synthesis as a

Ratio of Two Complex Polynomials,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, v 8 , p 56-58, 1963.
[SGI97] Skelton, R. E., K. M. Grigoriadis and T. Iwasaki, “Control System De

sign: A Unified Algebraic Approach,” Taylor &: Francis, 1997.
[Sor80] Sorenson, H. W., “Param eter Estimation: Principles and Problems,” M.

Dekker, 1980.
BIBLIO G R AP H Y 109
[Str8 6 ] Strang, G., “Linear Algebra and its Applications," Harcourt Brace Jo-
vanovich College Pubilshers, 1986.
[SE96] Stanbridge, A. B. and D. J. Ewins, “Modal Testing of Unconstrained Ro
tors,” IMechE Conference Transactions, Sixth International Conference
on Vibrations in Rotating Machinery, p 563-572, 1996.
[SK96] Swanson, E. E. and R. G. Kirk. “Survey of Experimental D ata
for Fixed Geometric Hydrodynamic Journal Bearings," Proceedings of
A S M E /S T L E Tribolgy Conference, (reprint 96-TRIB-65,) 1996.
[Tam96] Tamer, S. M., “Robust Adaptive Open Loop Control of Periodic D istur
bances: Analysis, Synthesis and Implementation,” M. S. Thesis. Univer
sity of Virginia, 1996.
[Van88 ] Vance, J. M.. “Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery," John Wiley Sons.
Inc., 1988.
[Yas92] Yasui. Y., “Decomposition Method for Mode Shape Identification Us
ing Measured Data," JSME International Journal, Series 3: Vibration,
Control Engineering, Engineering fo r Industry, v 35, n 2, p 279-285,
1992.
[YD90] Young, P. M. and J. C. Doyle, “Com putation of \l with real and Complex
Uncertainties," Proceedings of the 29th IE EE Conference on Decision
and Control, p 1230-1235, 1990.
[YND91] Young, P. M., M. P. Newlin and J. C. Doyle, “// Analysis with Real
Param etric Uncertainties," Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, p 1251-1256, 1991.
[YND92] Young, P. M.. M. P. Newlin and J. C. Doyle. “Practical Com putation of

the mixed [x Problem,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
v 3, p 2190-2194. 1992.
[You93] Young, P. M., “Robustness W ith Param etric and Dynamic Uncertainty,"
[You94] Young, P. M., “Controller Design with Mixed Uncertainties,” Proceedings
of the American Control Conference, p 2333-2337, 1994.
[Zha98] Zhao, Y., “Dynamic Analysis of Annular Liquid Seals," Ph.D. Disserta
tion, 1998.
[Zho97] Zhong, P., “Rotor Bearing System Identification Using Time Domain
Methods,” Ph.D. Dissertation, 1997.
[ZDG96] Zhou, K., J. C. Doyle and K. Glover, “Robust and Optimal Control,”
Prentice-Hall, 1996.
A p p en d ix A
M atrix M a th em a tics R eference
A .l Singular V alue D eco m p o sitio n
The singular value decomposition (SVD) is closely related to the eigenvalue-eigenvector
factorization of a square, symmetric m atrix in which M = Q A Q T . The eigenvalues
of M are on the diagonal of A and the eigenvectors of M are chosen orthogonal.
QTQ = I. For rectangular matrices a similar factorization is possible. A general
m x n matrix M can be factored into
M = U"£VT (A.l)
where U (m x m) are eigenvectors of M A I7 and the columns of V (n x n) are the
eigenvectors of A/r A/. The r singular values on the diagonal of S (m x n) are the
square roots of the eigenvalues of both M A/ 7 and A/7*M . For complex matrices, the
eigenvector matrices U and V are unitary, then M = UH VH. T he columns of U and
V provide orthonormal bases for all four fundamental subspaces according to:
• Column space of M : first r columns of U
• Left nullspace of M : last n — r columns of U
• Row space of M: first r columns of V
• Nullspace of M : last n — r columns of V
The reader is referred to [Str8 6 ] for more extensive presentation and reference on
SVD and general linear algebra.
110
A PP EN D IX A. M A T R IX M ATHEM ATICS R EFEREN C E 111
Figure A .l: Upper linear fractional transformation
A .2 Linear Fractional T ransform ation
The linear fractional transformation (LFT) is a shorthand notation representing a
feedback connection between two matrices. Figure A .l illustrates an upper LFT. The
upper and lower LFT of two matrices M and A are defined as
J~i{M, A*) = M u -F M 12A ,( / — A/ 22A^) A

1 /21 (A.2)
F U(M, A u) = M22 + M u Att( / - M n A u) - lMi2 (A.3)
The notation E uand T i indicate whether the lower or upper loop, respectively, of
M is closedwith A. For example, the upper LFT has a nominal mapping, A/ 22
from f to y and is perturbed by Au through the matrices M u , A/ 12 and M2\ which
each represent prior knowledge of how the perturbation affects the nominal transfer
function. Likewise for the lower LFT. This notation provides a very flexible and
convenient means of representing uncertainty in modeled system matrices. The reader
is referred to [ZDG96] or [BDG95] for more more extensive presentation.
A .3 Linear M atrix Inequalities
Linear m atrix equalities (LMIs) have become a useful design tool in the area of
autom atic controls engineering. Many control design and performance constraints
APPEN D IX A. M A TR IX M ATH EM ATIC S REFERENCE 112
can be expressed as LMI specifications. These types of problems can be solved using
convex optimization algorithms. An LMI is a constraint of the form
M (x) < 0, M ( x ) = Mo + xiM i H b x nM n (A.4)
where x is a vector of the unknown optimization scalars and the matrices Mi are
known symmetric matrices. The “< 0” stands for “negative definite." Interestingly,
while (A.4) may not have a closed form analytical solution, a solution x can be found
numerically. The fact that (A.4) represents a convex constraint implies th at a solution
is guaranteed to be found. The reader is referred to other references [BGF94] [GA94]
[GNL95] for a more thorough presentation.
A p p en d ix B
M odal T ransform ation
This appendix is included to describe the formulation of the transformation m atrix ^
which transforms a dynamic system model m atrix .4 to full block modal form, i. e..
0 I
(B .l)
—ft 2 -2EQ,
where both ft and r. are diagonal.
B .l T h e D iagon al Form o f a M a trix
For a n x n m atrix .4. with n linearly independent eigenvectors and the eigenvalues
of .4 on the diagonal of Ad then
Ai
Ad = = T 7 lA Td (B.2)
A,
where Td is the m atrix of eigenvectors of .4
Td = 4>i fa (B-3)
113
A P P E N D IX B. MODAL TR A N SF O R M A TIO N 114
B .2 T ransform ation to R ea l Form
For a m atrix with only complex eigenvalues, the eigenvalues appear in complex con
jugate pairs. Each 2 x 2 diagonal subm atrix, A dj, of these complex eigenvalue pairs
may be transformed to a full, real 2 x 2 block m atrix by
A T] = T ~ lA djTr (B-4)
-l
i —1 A 0 i —1
(B.5)
-i -1 0 A* -i -1
a —0
(B.6 )
8 a
for a, 0 € M. The full n x n transformation m atrix for Ad (assuming all the eigenvalues
of A d are complex) is given by the block diagonal transformation m atrix
i -1
-i -1
i -1
Tr = -i -1 (B.7)
i -1
—i —1
A P P E N D IX B. MODAL TRANSFO RM ATIO N 115
B .3 T ransform ation to Full B lo ck M o d a l Form
The skew symmetric m atrix A rj can be transformed to block m odal form by
Abj = Tb~lA rjTb (B-8 )

-i
1
so
o
a -3 -3 0
1
(B-9)
—a 1 3 a —a 1
0 1
A bj - (B.10)
7 5
The full n x n transformation m atrix for -4r is given by
—a 0
ar{t+3.k) 0
Th = (B .ll)
a r (k + 2 .k + 2 ) ^
( k +- 4 - 1. k )
If Ad has pairs of real eigenvalues, the real, 2 x 2 diagonal submatrices. may
also be transformed to block modal form bv
(B.12)
T-i
1 1 1
An 0
(B.13)
Ar, 0 Ari An Aj-j
0 1
(B.14)
Ar j Ari (A ri 4“ Ar2 )
0 1
A frn —
(B.15)
C V
A P P E N D IX B. MODAL TR A N SFO RM A TIO N 116
Real eigenvalues may be truncated from Ad, if so desired, as they represent over
damped modes of the system, and as such, will have little influence on the dynamic
synchronous response. From here, a simple permutation matrix transforms the block
diagonal matrices A/, and A ^ to the desired full block modal form.
-i Ab 0
A b — Ttp (B-16)
0 Aftr
0 /
Ab = [diag{7j}] [diag{(5j}] (B.17)
[diag{ 0 }] [diag{77/}]
The elements 7 j and 6j are related to the original [complex] eigenvalue of A
Xj = dj + iu d} = QjUnj 4- iu nj y 1 + Cj (B-18)
bv
7j — ~ (B.19)
where uinj is the undamped natural frequency, ujd} is the damped natural frequency
and Q is the damping ratio, of the ith mode of vibration. The complete transformation
m atrix is given by
'F = TdTrTbTp (B.20)
A p p en d ix C
T he K alm an F ilter
One proposed alternative, which was investigated early in the research effort, was
the possibility of using a Kalman filter structure for the construction of the esti
mator/observer. The primary motivation for casting the estimation process into this
form was because it is amenable to linear fractional uncertainty representation, which
is required to perform structured singular value uncertainty analysis on the problem.
It was discovered th at the particular structure of the Kalman filter was not actu
ally necessary, in favor of alternative, more straightforward techniques of uncertainty
analysis, and the idea was subsequently abandoned. It does, however, give some use
ful insight into the current estimation problem of interest and is included here for
reference.
C .l F orm ulation
The estimation process that was presented in C hapter 3 will beused to aid the
construction ofthe Kalman filter. The Kalman filter is an optimum state estim ator
for the dynamic system described by
± = Ax + B u + T w (C .l)
Vm = C mx + v (C.2)
where u is a known input and ym is a set of measurable observations. The inputs v
and w are white noise processes. Specifically, v and w must be zero-mean, Gaussian,
117
A P P E N D IX C. THE K A L M A N F IL T E R 118
/m
2
m
Figure C .l: The Kalman filter
stochastic process having known covariences
E { vvt } = V0 > 0, E {wwt ] = W0 > 0 (C.3)
E { vwt } = Xa> 0 (C-4)
The structure of the Kalman filter is presented in Figure C .l. The solution to the
problem can be expressed by the differential equation for an observer
x = A ax + B u + L 0ym (C.5)
yu = C ux (C.6 )
where
A 0 — A —L 0 C r (C.7)
The optimum observer gain matrix, L„, is computed using any number of appropriate
methods.
APPEND IX C. TH E K A L M A N FILTER 119
In the process of applying a Kalman filter to a spinning rotor, it should be noted
th at while all the control inputs u may be known (as from the measurable control
inputs from magnetic bearings), the disturbance inputs, such as an unbalance input,
are most certainly not white. Gaussian noise processes. To accommodate this, the
boundaries of the model must be pushed back to include the loads (the unmeasurable
disturbance forces) such that these unknown inputs to the rotor can be described by
a source which is white and Gaussian. Fortunately, since the input disturbance forces
are known to be p red o m in an tly synchronous, it is possible to very easily extend the
boundary of the plant model to include these forces.
C .2 Load M od els
A sinusoidal force of arbitrary phase, amplitude .4 and frequency f2 can be described
by
/( f ) = .4 [mi(t) sin(fit) + w 2(t) cos(fit)] (C.8 )
where w\ (t) and w2(t) and are impulse functions imposed to set the initial conditions
of the phase of the force, subject to
+ W2(t)~ 5; 1 (C.9)
Taking the Laplace transform of (C.8 ) transforms this force signal to the frequency
domain
Qu;1(s) _ sw2(s)
(C.1 0 )
s2 + Q.2 + s2 + Q2
(C .ll)
This forcing function can be modeled in state space as the output of the autonomous,
marginally stable system described by
A± 0
(C.12)
-n 2 o
(C-13)
In general, any time domain phenomenon which has a finite frequency domain repre
sentation can be formulated in such a manner.
The disturbance force models can then be augmented to the original rotor model
to form an expanded plant model

f '
Ar B rdCdr xr 0
< >+ M (C.14)
Xd Bdn
.
Xd 0
0
Xr
Vm — Cm 0 + M (C-15)
Xd
where
-4r : rotor model state m atrix
B rd: rotor model disturbance force input selection matrix
Cm: rotor model output selection matrix (defining the actual sensor measurements)
.4^: disturbance force model state matrix
B dn' disturbance force model noise input selection matrix
Cdr* disturbance force model output selection matrix
and defining
r -]
A r B rdCdr 0
A = , B = , C — Cm 0 (C.16)
-
O
B dn
_1
APPEND IX C. THE K A L M A N FILTER 121
The input w to the plant is in the form of a white noise, which drives the forces, which
in turn, drives the rotor. W ith this feature, the observer problem is now solvable using
readily available modem control tools and LQG machinery.
C .3 O bservability
A nominal rotor model, with no forces imposed, is usually fully observable. However,
once the number of modeled disturbance forces exceeds the number of sensor mea
surements, the load-augmented system is no longer fully observable. This, essentially,
is why the critical response estimation process becomes difficult - there are almost
always too many forces in the system which render the system partially unobserv
able. One means of proceeding with the design of the Kalman filter is to separate the
augmented model into observable and unobservable subspaces. If the observability
m atrix of the pair (A. C) has rank r < n, where n is the size of A , then there is a
similarity transformation, T such that
A = TATr, B = TB. C = CTt (C.17)
and the transformed system has the staircase form
Auo A21 r
B u0
A = , B= , c= 0 c0
0 A0 B0
where A 0 is the observable portion of A and A uo is the unobservable portion of A .
In addition, the unobservable modes do not influence the transfer function
G{s) = C { s l - A )-1B = C0{ s l - A 0) ' l B 0 (C.19)
This is equivalent to the force decomposition described in the previous chapter in
which it was shown that /j_ (the unmeasurable portions of the input disturbance
forces, which lie in the nullspace of the transmissibility matrix. T mcj) contribute noth
ing to the measurable response.
One potential problem with the transform ation to this form is that, due to the
“stiff’ nature of the plant, (z. e.. the large difference in magnitude between the largest
and smallest eigenvalues.) the similarity transform ation process can introduce numer
ical conditioning difficulties which render the model to be less observable than it is
known to be. One solution to this poor numerical conditioning is to use prior knowl
edge of the observability of the plant model. The observability of the augmented plant
is, in fact, already known - it depends upon the number of sensor measurements avail
able. Instead of augmenting the original plant with a force model for each postulated
disturbance force, it is really only necessary to add as many disturbance force oscil
lator models equal to the number of sensor measurements, but the force magnitude
of these added models must be scaled by the already decomposed measurable force
components computed (from Chapter 3) by
fm — T n ym (C.20)
By doing this, it will be known a priori that the augmented plant is fully observable
and it is no longer necessary to deal with the numerical errors introduced by the
process of separating the observable and unobservable subspaces.
Once the augmented plant model is assembled, it is a straightforward process, via
LQG machinery, to solve for L0, the Kalman filter gain m atrix which is given by
L 0 = P0C TV - 1 (C.21)
where Pa satisfies the algebraic Riccati equation
P0A T + A P0 - P0C TV - 1 + T W 0T t = 0 (C.22)
A P P E N D IX a TH E K A L M A N FILTER 123
and
Po = P j > o (C.23)
Several methods are available for solving (C.22). A method first presented by
MacFarlane [Mac63] and P otter [Pot6 6 j is unique in that the solution method requires
only linear algebra. The solution starts with the construction of the Hamiltonian
m atrix
r a t - c Tv ~ lc
H = (C.24)
-rw 0rr -a
which has the property that if A is an eigenvalue of H , so then is —A. The m atrix of
eigenvectors of H , <f>. is ordered such th at the left-most n columns correspond to the
eigenvalues with negative real parts.
©11 ©12
$ = (C.25)
<2>2I ©22
The solution to (C.22) is then given by
P0 = ©21©n (C.26)
A Kalman filter observer was designed for the three-bearing rotor reference model
using the formulation presented the previous sections. The MATLAB script file
eyubndk.m, included in Appendix E, was created for this analysis. A comparison
of Figures C.2 and 3.4 shows th a t the Kalman filter results in an identical prediction
of the nominal optimal estim ation error.
C .4 K alm an F ilter U n certa in ty R ep resen ta tio n
The reason for applying the Kalman filter to the critical response estimation was for
the purposes of facilitating the incorporation of model uncertainty into the process.
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Magnitude e V u (kaim *n filter)
(in) le-°°
le-06 5200 rpm
le-07
le-08
1 10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure C.2 : Maximized estimation error as produced by the Kalman filter ob
server/estimator. Three-bearing rotor, critical point # 3 . three sensor measurements.
Model error can be introduced into the Kalman filter for each uncertain m atrix as
shown in Figure C.3. The differential equation for the observer, including the m atrix
errors depicted in Figure C.3 can be written out as
i = [A + -4a —L 0(C m —Cm^)]x -+- Laym (C.2 <)
Vu = [Cu 4- CuJ x (C.28)
The process of "pulling out the As” transforms this system of equations into an
upper LFT as shown in Figure C.4. Each uncertainty is modeled as contributing
an uncertain force input to the system. The matrices B a , D u and Doi distribute
the uncertain forces to the correct state variables and output signals. The output
selection matrices C a and D 12 are chosen to provide the correct scaling of the inputs
driving each A uncertainty' block.
A P P E N D IX a TH E K A L M A N FILTER 125
X J? 0 + "L0
'-'u
/ (' )*
7+
.
/m
2
Figure C.3: The Kalman filter with uncertainty
ys h
A 0 B i L0
Vu
cA D u D12
/m
2
Cu D 21 D 22
Figure C.4: Kalman filter with linear fractional uncertainty representation
A p p en d ix D
R eference R o to r M od el D a ta
D .l T h ree-B ea rin g R otor
sensor sensor
clearance clearance clearance extra
no. 1 no. 2 no. 3 sensor
bearing motor bearing bearing

mass
thrust disk
Total Rotor Weight: 225 lbm
Maximum Operating Speed: 5200 rpm
Figure D .l: Three-Bearing Rotor
126
A PP EN D IX D. R E F ER E N C E RO TO R MODEL DATA
D .1 .1 L u m p ed M a ss M o d el D a ta
O utput from ROMAC program MODAL:

ROTOR 1 LUMPED MASS CONFIGURATIONS
NR1 = 27 STATIONS
‘ION NO. WEIGHT LENGTH SHAFT DIA. SHAFT DIA. POSITION
(LB) (IN.) OUTSIDE INSIDE (IN)
1 1.152 0.625 2.250 0.000 0.000
2 4.467 3.405 2.250 0.000 0.625
3 16.789 3.863 2.250 0.000 4.030
4 5.541 1.364 2.250 0.000 7.893
5 2.253 1.929 2.250 0.000 9.257
6 16.550 5.256 2.400 0.000 11.186
7 15.729 5.256 2.400 0.000 16.442
8 13.929 5.256 2.400 0.000 21.698
9 13.929 5.256 2.400 o.coo 26.954
10 15.729 5.256 2.400 0.000 32.210
11 16.550 1.929 2.250 0.000 37.466
12 2.253 1.364 2.250 0.000 39.395
13 5.541 3.863 2.250 0.000 40.759
14 16.578 3.030 2.250 0.000 44.622
15 8.322 5.185 2.250 0.000 47.652
16 5.834 5.185 2.250 0.000 52.837
17 5.834 5.185 2.250 0.000 58.022
18 5.834 5.185 2.250 0.000 63.207
19 5.834 5.185 2.250 0.000 68.392
20 5.834 5.185 2.250 0.000 73.577
21 4.763 3.280 2.250 0.000 78.762
22 17.563 4.474 2.250 0.000 82.042
23 8.636 3.233 2.250 0.000 86.516
24 12.185 2.250 2.250 0.000 89.749
25 3.891 2.500 1.375 0.000 91.999
26 1.077 2.500 1.125 0.000 94.499
27 0.352 0.000 1.125 0.000 96.999
232.948 96.999
CENTER OF GRAVITY: 42.1916 INCHES

STATION NO. I IP-POLAR MOM. IT-TRANS. MOM. E*10-6
(IN»»4) (LB-IN»»2) (LB-IN»*2)
1 1.26 0.223 0.123 30.000
2 1.26 1.435 2.580 30.000
3 1.26 2.588 5.847 30.000
4 1.26 1.861 3.752 30.000
5 1.26 1.172 1.042 30.000
6 1.63 3.109 9.637 30.000
7 1.63 4.845 17.914 30.000
8 1.63 4.845 17.914 30.000
9 1.63 4.845 17.914 30.000
10 1.63 4.845 17.914 30.000
11 1.26. 3.109 9.637 30.000
12 1.26 1.172 1.042 30.000
13 1.26 1.861 3.752 30.000
14 1.26 2.454 5.234 30.000
15 1.26 2.925 9.302 30.000
16 1.26 3.692 14.917 30.000
17 1.26 3.692 14.917 30.000
18 1.26 3.692 14.917 30.000
A P P E N D IX D. REFERENCE R O T O R MODEL DATA
19 1 .2 6 3 .6 9 2 1 4 .9 1 7 3 0 .000
20 1 .2 6 3 .6 9 2 1 4 .9 1 7 3 0 .0 0 0
21 1 .2 6 3 .0 1 4 9 .6 9 7 3 0 .0 0 0
22 1 .2 6 2 .761 7 .2 3 4 3 0 .0 0 0
23 1 .2 6 2 .7 4 4 7 .1 5 5 3 0 .0 0 0
24 1 .2 6 4 5 .5 5 2 2 5 .3 9 4 3 0 .0 0 0
25 0 .1 8 0 .9 2 5 1 .2 7 0 3 0 .0 0 0
26 0 .0 8 0 .1 8 0 0 .5 4 7 3 0 .0 0 0
27 0 .0 0 0 .0 5 6 0 .2 1 1 3 0 .0 0 0
ip u t C o n fig u ra tio n
In p u t S ta tio n ty p e ID
num ber num ber
1 1 tra n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 1"
2 2 tra n s la tio n a l " m o to r-e n d s e n s o r "
3 3 tr a n s la tio n a l " m o to r-e n d b e a r in g "
4 4 t r a n s l a t io n a l " s ta tio n 4”
5 5 t r a n s l a t io n a l " m o to r-e n d s e a l "
6 6 t r a n s l a t io n a l "m o to r m ass 1"
7 7 tra n s la tio n a l " s ta t io n 7”
10 10 tra n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 10”
11 11 tra n s la tio n a l "m o to r m ass 2"
12 12 t r a n s l a t io n a l "m id sp an s e a l "
14 14 tr a n s la tio n a l "m id sp an b e a r in g "
15 15 tra n s la tio n a l "m id sp an s e n s o r "
18 18 tr a n s la tio n a l "m id sp an p y c s"
21 21 tra n s la tio n a l “t h r u s t - e n d s e n s o r "
22 22 tra n s la tio n a l " t b r u s t - e n d b e a r in g
24 24 tra n s la tio n a l " t h r u s t b e a r in g "
25 25 tr a n s la tio n a l " e r tr a se n so r"
26 26 tra n s la tio n a l “ s t a t i o n 26"
27 27 tr a n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 27"
O u tp u t C o n f i g u r a t i o n
O u tp u t S ta tio n ty p e ID
num ber num ber
2 2 tra n s la tio n a l “m c to r -e n d s e n s o r "
3 3 tra n s la tio n a l “m o to r-e n d b e a r i n g ”
5 5 tra n s la tio n a l “m o to r- e n d s e a l "
6 6 tra n s la tio n a l "m o to r m ass 1"
10 10 tra n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 10“
11 11 tr a n s la tio n a l “m o to r m ass 2 “
12 12 tra n s la tio n a l "m id sp an s e a l ”
14 14 t r a n s l a t io n a l "m id sp a n b e a r in g "
15 15 tra n s la tio n a l "m id sp a n s e n s o r "
17 17 tr a n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 17“
18 18 tra n s la tio n a l "m id sp a n p y c s"
20 20 tra n s la tio n a l " s ta t io n 20“
APPEND IX D. R EF E R E N C E R O TO R M ODEL DATA 129
21 21 tra n s la tio n a l “t h r n s t - e n d s e n s o r ”
22 22 t r a n s l a t io n a l " th rn s t-e n d b e a rin g 1
23 23 tr a n s la tio n a l " s t a t i o n 23“
24 24 t r a n s l a t io n a l " t h r u s t b e a r in g "
25 25 tr a n s la tio n a l " e x tra se n so r”
26 26 t r a n s l a t io n a l " s t a t i o n 26"
Assumed m odal d am ping = 0.1%
D .1 .2 N a tu ra l F requencies and M o d e S h ap es
mode frequency
1 0
2 0
3 1817.3 cpm (30.2 Hz)

4 5885.3 cpm (98.1 Hz)
5 10506.3 cpm (175.2 Hz)
6 17641.9 cpm (294.1 Hz)
Table D .l: Free-free undamped natural frequencies, three-bearing rotor
A P P E N D IX D. R E F E R E N C E R O T O R MODEL DATA
Unit
Normalized
Magnitude 0
(in)
O3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure D.2: Free-free mode shapes, three-bearing rotor
10000
8000
Undamped 6000
Critical 5200_rpm
Speed
(rpm) 4000
2000
1000 10000 100000 le+06

Bearing Stiffness (lbf/in)
Figure D.3: Undam ped critical speed map, three-bearing rotor
APPEN D IX D. REFEREN C E R O TO R M ODEL DATA 131
D .2 C om p ressor R otor

clearance clearance clearance
sensor no. 1 no. 2 no. 3 sensor
extra
extra sensor extra
sensor no. 1 sensor
no. 2 a no. 2 b
bearing •thrust disk bearing
Total Rotor Weight: 2380 Ibm balance piston

Maximum O perating Speed: 7000 rpm compressor wheel
Figure D.4: Compressor Rotor
APPEND IX D. REFERENCE R O TO R MODEL DATA
D .2 .1 L um ped M ass M o d el D ata
O utput from ROMAC program MODAL:

ROTOR 1 LUMPED MASS CONFIGURATIONS
NR1 = 28 STATIONS
STATION NO. HEIGHT LENGTH SHAFT DIA. SHAFT DIA. POSITION

(LB) ( I N .) OUTSIDE INSIDE (IN )
1 23.9 3 0 2 .3 5 0 5 .8 8 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0
2 30.1 5 9 2 .3 5 0 5 .8 8 0 0 .0 0 0 2 .3 5 0
3 4 7 .8 8 0 5 .5 5 0 6 .1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 4 .7 0 0
4 74.9 0 9 4 .5 7 0 6 .3 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 .2 5 0
5 57.2 9 2 3 .5 0 0 6 .5 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 4 .8 2 0
6 4 3 .2 3 7 2 .5 8 0 6 .6 3 0 0 .0 0 0 1 8 .3 2 0
7 136.533 2 .8 3 0 6 .7 5 0 0 .0 0 0 2 0 .9 0 0
8 4 1 .8 7 5 5 .4 4 0 6 .7 5 0 0 .0 0 0 2 3 .7 3 0
9 50.4 9 3 3 .8 1 0 7 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 2 9 .1 7 0
10 8 1 .5 8 4 3 .0 0 0 7 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 3 2 .9 8 0
11 4 3 .0 0 9 3 .7 5 0 8 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 3 5 .9 8 0
12 56.0 4 7 4 .1 3 0 8 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 3 9 .7 3 0
13 118.282 8 .0 0 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 4 3 .8 6 0
14 184.816 8 .6 3 0 1 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 5 1 .8 6 0
15 125.858 3 .7 3 0 8 .5 0 0 0 .0 0 0 6 0 .4 9 0
16 3 00 .5 9 3 2 .8 2 0 8 .5 0 0 0.0 0 0 6 4 .2 2 0
17 235.118 2 .5 5 0 8 .5 0 0 0 .0 0 0 6 7 .0 4 0
18 5 9 .7 3 7 4 .1 3 0 8 .5 0 0 0.0 0 0 6 9 .5 9 0
19 6 1 .6 1 2 4 .0 0 0 8 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 3 .7 2 0
20 4 8 .2 1 8 3 .6 3 0 7 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 7 .7 2 0
21 8 1.9 6 5 3 .2 5 0 7 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 1 .3 5 0
22 3 2.4 2 0 2 .3 2 0 6 .8 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 4 .6 0 0
23 48 .7 7 1 4 .5 8 0 6 .7 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 6 .9 2 0
24 8 0.2 0 1 6 .2 3 0 6 .5 0 0 0 .0 0 0 9 1 .5 0 0
25 5 4 .5 8 8 2 .5 7 0 6 .3 0 0 0 .0 0 0 9 7 .7 3 0
26 3 4.3 1 8 2 .1 2 0 6 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 00 .3 0 0
27 147.600 4 .5 8 0 5 .4 5 0 0 .0 0 0 102 .4 2 0
28 2 1 .7 1 8 0 .0 0 0 5 .4 5 0 0 .0 0 0 107.000
2 322.764 1 0 7 .0 0 0
CENTER OF GRAVITY: 5 6 .6 5 4 3 INCHES
STATION NO. I IP-POLAR MOM. IT-TRANS. MOM. E*10-6

(IN«»4) (LB-IN **2) (LB-IN »*2)
1 5 8.6 8 3 9 .0 2 4 2 3 .6 6 8 2 9 .5 0 0
2 5 8.6 8 7 8 .0 4 8 4 7 .3 3 5 2 9 .5 0 0
3 6 7 .9 7 6 0 5 .7 7 4 3 6 5 .9 5 5 2 9 .5 0 0
4 77.3 3 1126.758 6 5 7 .3 7 4 2 9 .5 0 0
5 87 .6 2 6 4 6 .8 0 0 3 7 5 .2 5 9 29.5 0 0
6 9 4.8 5 15 6 .0 4 3 1 0 1 .7 8 9 29.5 0 0
7 101.90 5 6 8 0 .8 6 4 2 8 5 6 .9 8 7 2 9 .5 0 0
8 101.90 2 3 8 .4 9 4 1 9 6 .7 4 2 2 9 .5 0 0
9 117.86 2 8 3 .9 6 0 2 3 5 .0 0 9 2 9 .5 0 0
10 117.86 1002.141 5 3 8 .9 2 1 2 9 .5 0 0
11 201.06 3 1 3 .4 3 9 2 0 0 .2 2 8 2 9 .5 0 0
12 201.06 4 4 8 .3 7 6 2 9 7 .1 9 8 29.5 0 0
13 490.87 1346.338 1 1 8 9 .0 9 4 29.5 0 0
14 4 90 .8 7 2 3 1 0 .1 9 5 2 2 2 4 .5 1 6 2 9 .5 0 0
15 256 .2 4 1469.340 1 3 6 4 .6 4 1 2 9 .5 0 0
16 256.24 261 5 4 .9 7 9 1 3 1 2 7 .2 1 9 2 9 .5 0 0
17 256.24 14439.409 7 2 4 5 .8 0 5 2 9 .5 0 0
APPEND IX D. R EFEREN C E RO TO R MODEL DATA
18 2 5 6 .2 4 4 8 4 .4 0 5 3 0 0 .4 3 3 .5 0 0
19 2 0 1 .0 6 5 2 7 .0 9 2 3 4 8 .6 1 6 .5 0 0
20 1 1 7 .8 6 3 4 8 .6 7 7 2 3 3 .9 7 8 500
21 1 1 7 .8 6 1 0 0 4 .4 7 6 5 4 0 .0 2 2 500
22 1 0 4 .9 6 1 7 7 .3 1 0 1 0 9.581 500
23 9 8 .9 2 6 4 7 .1 1 9 3 6 8 .8 4 7 500
24 8 7 .6 2 11 8 2 .6 9 9 7 2 5 .9 0 4 500
25 7 7 .3 3 6 6 0 .7 3 0 4 3 1 .2 1 9 500
26 6 3 .6 2 9 4 .4 0 9 5 6 .6 2 0 500
27 4 3 .3 1 2 7 6 4 .3 0 0 14 1 1.754 500
28 0 .0 0 5 6 .1 3 2 5 4 .4 9 3 500
In p u t C o n fig u ra tio n
In p u t S ta tio n ty p e ID
number num ber
3 3 t r a n s l a t io n a l " o u tb o a r d s e n s o r "
4 4 tra n s la tio n a l " o u tb o a r d b e a r i n g ”
5 5 t r a n s l a t io n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 2a"
6 6 t r a n s l a t io n a l " s ta tio n 6”
7 7 tra n s la tio n a l " t h r u s t b e a r in g "
8 8 t r a n s l a t io n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 1"
10 10 tra n s la tio n a l " o u tb o a r d s e a l "
16 16 tra n s la tio n a l " c o m p re ss o r w h eel"
17 17 tra n s la tio n a l " b a la n c e p i s t o n "
21 21 t r a n s l a t io n a l " d r i v e - e n d seed."
23 23 tra n s la tio n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 2b"
24 24 t r a n s l a t io n a l " d riv e -e n d b e a rin g
25 25 tra n s la tio n a l " d riv e -e n d se n so r"
27 27 tra n s la tio n a l " c o u p lin g "
O utput C o n f i g u r a t i o n
O utput S ta tio n ty p e ID
number num ber
3 3 tra n s la tio n a l " o u tb o a r d s e n s o r "
4 4 tra n s la tio n a l " o u tb o a r d b e a r in g "
5 5 t r a n s l a t io n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 2a"
7 7 t r a n s l a t io n a l " t h r u s t b e a r in g "
8 8 t r a n s l a t io n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 1"
10 10 t r a n s l a t io n a l " o u tb o a r d s e a l "
12 12 t r a n s l a t io n a l " s t a t i o n 12”
16 16 tra n s la tio n a l "c o m p re ss o r w h eel"
17 17 t r a n s l a t io n a l " b a la n c e p i s t o n "
APP EN D IX D. R EF E R E N C E R O TO R MODEL DATA
18 18 tr a n s la t io n a l " s t a t i o n 18"
21 21 tr a n s la tio n a l " d riv e -e n d s e a l"
23 23 tr a n s la t io n a l " e x t r a s e n s o r 2b"
24 24 tra n s la tio n a l " d r i v e - e n d b e a r in g 1
25 25 tr a n s la tio n a l " d r i v e - e n d s e n s o r"
27 27 tra n s la tio n a l " c o u p li n g ”
Assumed m odal dam ping - 0.2%
D .2 .2 N a tu r a l F req u en cies and M od e S h a p es
mode frequency
1 0
2 0
3 6300.7 cpm (105.0 Hz)

4 13485.5 cpm (224.8 Hz)
5 26556.1 cpm (442.6 Hz)
6 38938.1 cpm (649.0 Hz)
Table D.2: Free-free undamped natural frequencies, compressor rotor
A PP EN D IX D. REFERENCE RO TO R MODEL DATA 135
Unit
Normalized
Magnitude 0
(in)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure D.5: Free-free mode shapes, compressor rotor
14000
12000
10000
Undamped
Critical 8000
Speed
(rpm) 6000
4000
2000
0
10000 100000 le-f-06 le+ 0 7
Bearing Stiffness (lbf/in)
Figure D.6 : Undamped critical speed map. compressor rotor
A p p en d ix E
M A TLA B Script Files
E .l ey u b n d 2 .m
X eyubnd2.m
X C om putation o f M axim ized E s t im a ti o n E r r o r v i a STD
c l e a r a l l ; fo rm a t lo n g ;
r o to m a m e - ’3 - B e a r in g R o t o r ’ ;
f i l e i d l = ’m ';
f ile id 2 = l;
p ycsno= 3;
s e n s tn = [2 ; 15 ; 21 ] ; X se n so r s ta tio n s
unm stn=18; X u n m ea su ra b le s t a t i o n s
c r t _ c lr = .0 0 5 ; X c r i t i c a l c le a r a n c e
u n b stn = [3 ; 6 ; 11 ; 14 ; 22 ; 24 ] ; X u n b a la n c e l o c a t i o n s
Wr=233; X r o t o r w e ig h t
N=5200; X o p e r a tin g sp e e d
bov_mag=.0 0 5 ; X bow m agnitude
b rg s tn = [ 3 ; 14 ; 22 ] ; X b e a r in g s t a t i o n s
k b l= 5 0 0 0 0 ; k b 2 = k b l; k b 3 = k b l; X b e a r in g s t i f f n e s s , l b f / i n
z b l= 1 0 0 ; z b 2 = z b l; z b 3 = z b l; X an d dam ping, l b f - s / i n
p o in ts = 3 0 0 ; X fre q u e n c y d a t a p o i n ts
n s = s iz e ( s e n s tn ,1 );
m y t i t l e = s p r i n t f ( ’e y u b n d 2 .m : X s, Xd S e n s o r s , PYCS »Xd ( S t a t i o n SXd) ’ , —

r o to r n a m e , n s , p y c s n o , u n m stn );
d is p C ’ );
d i s p ( ’eyubnd2.m : C o m p u ta tio n o f M axim ized E s tim a tio n E r r o r T in STD’ ) ;
d is p C ’ ’ ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’r o t o r m o d e l: X s, Xd s e n s o r s , c r i t i c a l p o i n t *Xd ( s t a t i o n * Z d ) ’ , - - .
ro to m a m e . n s , p y c s n o , unm stn) ) ;
d is p C ’ ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
d i s p ( ’l o a d i n g r o t o r m odel d a t a f i l e s — ’ ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
lo a d A r.m at - a s c i i ;
lo a d S r.m a t - a s c i i ;
lo a d C r.m a t - a s c i i ;
n r = s i z e ( A r , 1 ) ; I r = e y e ( n r ) : n m o d e s= n r/2 ;
X in p u t m a t r i c e s
n u i n p u ts = s iz e ( u n b s t n , 1 ) ; n i n p u ts = n u i n p u t s + l ;
f o r i = l z n u i n p u t s , B u n b C : , i ) = B r ( : , u n b s t n ( i ) ) ; end;
n b rg ° s iz e (b rg s tn ,1 );
f o r i = l : n b r g , B b r g ( : , i ) = B r ( : , b r g s t n ( i ) ) ; end;
X o u tp u t m a t r i c e s
136
A PP EN D IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES 137
f o r i - l : n s , C m ( i,:)= C r ( s e n s tn ( i) , : ) ; end;
Cu=Cr ( u n m s t n ,: ) ;
f o r i = l : n b r g , C b r g ( i , : ) * C r ( b r g s t n ( i ) , : ) ; end;
C 2 b r g = [ z e r o s ( n b r g , n m odes) C b rg C :, 1 :nm odes) ] ;
X u n i t n o r m a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a t r i x ( t r a n s l a t i o n s o n ly )
lo a d M SI.m at - a s c i i ;
X m ass n o r m a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a t r i x (c o m p le te : t r a n s l a t i o n s a n d r o t a t i o n s )

lo a d MSm.mat - a s c i i ;
X g e n e r a te u n b a la n c e f o r c e s
g c -3 8 6 ; tJapi= 4«W r/(H *16*gc) ;
N d = z e r o s ( n i n p u t s ) ; f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s H d ( k ,k ) = l/U a p i; e n d
X g e n e r a te bo» f o r c e s
m o d el= M S l(:, 4 ) ;
i f m ax (m o d el)— 1
b o u = m o d e l-l; x b o v = -b o » /m a x (a b s (b o w ));
e l s e b o v = m o d e l+ l; xbo w = b o w /m ax (ab s(b o w ));
end;
B b o u = A r« p in v (C r)* x b o u ; H d ( n in p u ts ,n in p u ts ) = l/b o v _ m a g ;
X add b e a r i n g s
K b rg = [k b l 0 0 ;
0 kb2 0 ;
0 0 kb3 ];
Z b rg = [z b l 0 0 ;
0 zb2 0 ;
0 0 zb3 ];
KZbrg=[K brg z e r o s (n b rg ) ;
zero s(n b rg ) Z b rg ];
A r= A r+ [-B brg -B b rg ]« K Z b rg » [C b rg ;
C 2brg ] ;
X g e n e r a te f r e q u e n c y d a t a
o m e g a _ H z = lo g sp a c e (0 ,3 , p o i n t s ) ;
om ega_rps= om ega_H z*2*pi; omega_rpm=omega_Hz«60;
sm axl2= 0;
d i s p ( s p r i n t f ( ’c o n s t r u c t i n g e s t i m a t o r a t Xd f r e q u e n c i e s fro m Xd Hz t o Xd H z * .—
p o i n t s , o m e g a .H z ( l) , o m e g a .H z ( p o in ts )) ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
fo r i= l:p o ia ts ,
w = o m e g a _ rp s(i);
X e s tim a to r c o n s tr u c tio n
Bd=[Bunb»v“ 2 Bbov ] /H d ;
G = i n v ( ( j » « « I r ) - A r ) ; Pmd=Cm»G«Bd; Pud=Cu*G*Bd;
[U ,S ,V ]= svd(P m d) ; V r o w = V ( : ,l: n s ) ; V n u ll = V ( :,n s + l: s i z e ( P m d ,2 ) ) ;
T ll-P m d * V ro v ; T 12=Pm d*V null; s= m ax (sv d (T 1 2 )) ; i f s> sm ax l2 sm a x !2 = s; e n d ;
T21=Pud«Vrou; T 2 2 = P ud*V null;
T = T 2 1 * in v (T ll) ;
X sv d a n a l y s i s
Te=Pud-T*Pmd; D J .S .V ]= sv d (T e ) ;
fm ax = V (:, 1 ) ;
Fmnx=Hd\fmax;
HF=Hd*Fmax; N F norm (i)= norm (N d»F m ax);
f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s , N F u m a g (i,k )= a b s ( N F (k )) ; e n d ; H F b m a g ( i) - a b s ( N F ( n in p u ts ) ) ;
Ym=Pmd«fmax; f o r k = l : n s , y m (i,k )= a b s (Y m (k )) ; e n d ;
Fm =iav(T U )*Y m ;
Y u_estm (i)=T*Y m ;
A P P E N D IX E. M A TLA B SC R IP T FILES
Yu ( i ) = P u d * fm ax ;
e y u l( i)= Y u (i)- Y u _ e s tm (i) ;
e y u 2 (i)= > m a x (sv d (T e )) ;
e y u 3 (i)= T e « fm a x ;
end;
d i s p C . . .d o n e .') ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’ c h e c k : max s i n g u l a r v a lu e o f T12 = %f ( s h o u ld be z e r o ) ’ , —
s m a x l2 ) ) ;
f o r i* = l:p o in ts ,
y o u r ( i , 1 ) =om ega_H z( i ) ;
y o u t ( i , 2 ) = a b s ( Y u _ e s t m ( i ) ) ; y o u t( i ,3 ) = a h s ( e y u l ( i ) ) ;
en d ;
y o u t= [y o u t ym] ;
s a v e y o u t = s p r i n t f ( ’ s a v e %sXd%dyemx%d.dat y o u t - a s c i i - d o u b l e ’ , __
file id l,n s ,p y c s n o ,f ile id 2 ) ;
e v a l( sa v e y o u t) ;
fo u t= [o m e g a _ H z ’ NFumag NFbmag’ NFnorm’] ;

s a v e f o u t = s p r i n t f ( 's a v e '/Cs’/.dXdfmx’/ .d . d a t f o u t - a s c i i - d o u b l e ’ , . . .
f i l e i d l , n s , p y c sn o , f i l e i d 2 ) ;
e v a l(s a v e fo u t) ;
omega=om ega_Hz;
x m in = o m e g a (l); n n a x = o m e g a (p o in ts );
x l = 1 0 " ( l o g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + . l ) ; x 2 = 1 0 * ( lo g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l) ) + .9 ) ;
v l= o n e s (p o in ts ,1 ) ; re f= [le -3 * v l le - 4 * v l] ;
fig u re d ) ;
s u b p l o t ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) , lo g lo g (o m e g a ,a b s (Y u ) .o m e g a ,a b s ( Y u .e s tm ) , ’ : ’ , om ega,ym ,__
o m e g a ,a b s (e y u l) , ’ — ’ , o m e g a ,a b s (e y u 2 ), ’ — ■ , __
o m eg a ,a b s(e y u 3 ) , ’ — ’ .o m e g a , r e f . ’ — ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’M a g n itu d e ’ ) ;
y a i n = l e - 2 0 ; ym ax=leO ;
v= [xm in xmax ym in y m a x ]; a x i s ( v ) ;
7 ,v = a x is;
d y = lo g l0 ( v ( 4 ) ) - lo g l0 ( v ( 3 ) ) ;
y 2 = 1 0 " ( lo g l0 (v (3 ))+ (d y « .8 )) ;
y l= 1 0 " (lo g l0 (v (3 ))+ (d y * .2 )) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’Yu, eY u’ ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y l , ’Ym, Y u _ estm ’ ) ;
x l a b e l ( ’F r e q u e n c y ( H z ) ’ ) ;
fig u re d ) ;
s u b p l o t ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) , sem ilogx(om ega,N Fum ag,om ega,N F bm ag, ’ — ’ , omega,NFnorm, ’ : ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’N o rm a lize d M a g n itu d e ’ ) ;
y m in = -.0 5 ; ym ax= 1.0S ;
v= [xm in xmax ym in y m ax ]; a x i s ( v ) ;
’/ .v = a x is ;
dy= y m ax-ym in;
y 2 = v ( 3 ) + ( d y * .9 ) ;
y l = v ( 3 ) + ( d y * .2 ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’noxm (N d*Fm ax)’ ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y l , ’Nd*Fmax’ ) ;
x l a b e l ( ’F r e q u e n c y ( H z ) ’ ) ;
A P P E N D IX E. M A TLA B SC R IP T FILES 139
E .2 eyu m u sb .m
1 eyum usb.m
X C o m p u ta tio n o f M axim ized E s tim a tio n E r r o r v i a R e c o n s tr u c ti o n a n d MtJ
c l e a r ; f o r m a t lo n g ; s t a r t . t i m e - c p u t i m e ;
ro to rn a m e = *3 - B e a r in g R o t o r ’ ;
f i l e i d l = ’m’ ;
file id 2 = l;
p y c sn o = 3 ;
s e n s t n - [ 2 ; 15 ; 21 ] ; X se n so r s ta tio n s
u n m stn = 1 8 ; X u n m e a su ra b le s t a t i o n
c rt_ c lr= .0 0 5 ; X c r i t i c a l c le a r a n c e , in
u n b s t n - [ 3 ; 6 ; 11 ; 14 ; 22 ;; 24 ] ; X u n b a la n c e s t a t i o n s
Wr=233; X r o t o r w e ig h t, lbm
N=5200; X max o p e r a t i n g s p e e d , rpm
bou_m ag=.0 0 5 ; X bow m a g n itu d e , i n
b r g s t n - [3 ; 14 ; 22 ] ; X b e a rin g s t a ti o n s
k b l- 5 0 0 0 0 ; k b 2 = k b l; k b 3 = k b l; X b e a rin g s t i f f n e s s , l b f / i n
z b l= 1 0 0 ; z b 2 = z b l ; z b 3 = z b l; X and d am ping, l b f - s / i n
p o in ts - 3 0 0 ; X f re q u e n c y d a t a p o i n t s
n s = s iz e ( s e n s tn ,l) ;
m y t i t l e = s p r i n t f ( ’eyunm ab.m : X s, Xd S e n s o r s , PYCS #Xd ( S t a t i o n # X d )’ , . . .

r o to r n a m e , n s , p y c sn o , u n m s tn );
d is p C ’
d i s p ( ’ eyum usb.m : C o m p u ta tio n o f M axim ized E s tim a tio n E r r o r v i a MU S y n t h e s i s ') ;
d is p (’ ’);
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’r o t o r m o d el: Xs, Xd s e n s o r s , c r i t i c a l p o i n t tX d ( s t a t i o n #X d)' . . . .
ro to r n a m e , n s , p y c sn o , u n m s tn )); p a u s e d ) ;
d is p C ’ ’ ) ;
d is p C ’ l o a d i n g r o t o r m odel d a t a f i l e s . . . ' ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
l o a d A r.m a t - a s c i i ;
l o a d B r.m a t - a s c i i ;
l o a d C r.m a t - a s c i i ;
n r = s i z e ( A r , 1) ; X r= e y e (n r); n m odes= nr/2;
X in p u t m a tric e s
n u i n p u t s - s i z e ( u n b s t n , l ) ; n i n p u ts = n u i n p u t s + l ;
f o r i = l : n u i n p u t s , B u n b (: , i ) = B r ( : , u n b s t n ( i ) ) ; en d ;
n b rg = s iz e (b rg s tn ,1 );
f o r i = l : n b r g , B brgC : , i ) = B r ( : . b r g s t n ( i ) ) ; e n d ;
X o u tp u t m a tric e s
f o r i = l : n s , C m ( i , : ) = C r ( s e n s t n ( i ) , : ) ; en d ;
C u = C r(u n m s tn ,: ) ;
f o r i = l : n b r g , C b r g C i ,: ) = C r ( b r g s t n ( i ) , : ) ; en d ;
C2brg= [ z e r o s ( n b r g , nm odes) C b rg (: ,l:n m o d e s ) ] ;
X u n i t n o r m a liz e d mode sh a p e s m a tr ix ( t r a n s l a t i o n s o n ly )
l o a d M S I.m at - a s c i i ;
n s ta tio n s -s iz e (M S I,1 );
X m ass n o r m a liz e d mode sh a p e s m a tr ix (c o m p le te : t r a n s l a t i o n s »"H r o t a t i o n s )

l o a d MSm.mat - a s c i i ;
X g e n e r a t e u n b a la n c e f o r c e s
g c = 3 8 6 ; U ap i= 4 » W r/(H » 1 6 « g c);
N d = z e r o s ( n i n p u t s ) ; f o r k = l: n u i n p u ts H d ( k ,k ) = l/U a p i; e n d ;
X g e n e r a t e bow f o r c e s
APPEND IX E. M A TLA B SCRIPT FILES 140
m o d el-M S l(: , 4 ) ;
i f m a x ( m o d e l) = l
b ow = m o d el-l; xbow = -bow /m ax(abs(bow )) ;
e l s e bow = m odel+l; xbov= bow /m ax(abs(bow )) ;
end;
B bow = A r*pinv(C r)*xbov; N d ( n in p u ts ,n i n p u t s ) =1 /bow_m ag;
X add b e a r i n g s
Kbrg= [k b l 0 0 ;
0 kb2 0 ;
0 0 kb3 ] ;
Z b rg = [z b l 0 0 ;
0 zb 2 0 ;
0 0 zb 3 ] ;
KZbrg=[K brg z ero s(n b rg ) ;
z e r o s ( n b r g ) Z b rg ] ;
A=Ar+[-Bbrg -B b rg ] *KZbrg» [C brg ;

C 2brg ] ;
d i s p ( 't r a n s f o r m i n g t o m odal c o o r d i n a t e s . . . ’ )
[P S I]= tfm (A );
A r=PSI\A *PSI;
i f m i n ( a b s ( i m a g ( e i g ( A r ) ) ) ) < l , d i s p C WARNING, m odel may b e o v e r d a m p e d .') ; en d ;
X m odal f r e q u e n c y e r r o r
Ew=[ .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5 .0 6 .0 7 ] ;
Cl l=A r(nm odes+ 1: n r , 1 rnm odes) * ( 2 « d ia g (E u )) ;
% m odal dam ping e r r o r

E x i= [.0 3 .0 5 .0 7 .0 9 .1 1 .13 ] ;
C21=Ar(nm odes+1: n r , nm odes+ 1: n r ) « s q r t ( d i a g ( E x i . ~ 2 )+ d ia g (E w . *2) ) ;
X mode sh a p e e r r o r
Ems=C.04 .0 7 .1 0 .1 3 .1 6 .1 9 ] ;
d=M Sl(: , 1) ; C p h i_ d e lta ] = m s u n c e r t( d ,s e n s tn ) ;
MSm2=Msm*PSI;
f o r i= l:n m o d e s , P h i _ d e l t a ( : , i ) = p h i _ d e l t a * m a x ( a b s ( M S m 2 ( l :n s ta t io n s ,i ) ) ) ; end;
X b e a rin g c o e f f i c i e n t e r r o r
Ek=[. 1 .1 . 1 ] ;
E z = [ .l .1 . 1 ] ;
X bow e r r o r
E bov= . 1 ; z b o w _ d e lta = M S l(: ,5)«bow_mag;
% in p u t an d o u t p u t s e l e c t i o n m a tr ic e s
B u n b s = z e r o s ( n a t a t i o n s .n u im p u t s ) ; f o r i = l : n u i n p u t s , B u n b s ( u n b s tn ( i) , i ) = l ; end;
B b r g s = z e r o s ( n s ta t io n s ,n b r g ) ; f o r i = l : n b r g . B b r g s ( b r g s t n ( i ) , i ) = l ; e n d ;
C b r g s = z e r o s ( n b r g , n s t a t i o n s ) ; f o r i = l : n b r g , C b rg s( i . b r g s t n ( i ) ) = 1 ; e n d ;
C us= zeros ( 1 , n a t a t i o n s ) ; Cus ( 1 , u nm stn)=1;
C m s= zeros(ns . n a t a t i o n s ) ; f o r i = l : n s , C m s ( i , s e n s t n ( i ) ) = l ; e n d ;
X LFT c o n s t r u c t i o n
Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
A PPEN D IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES 141
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ];
P = [e y e (n r+ 2 « n b rg ) z e r o s ( n r + 2 « n b r g ,s iz e ( P m s .2 ) ;
z e r o s ( s i z e (Pms ,1 ) ,n r+ 2 » n b rg ) Pms ];
B ll= [z e r o s ( n m o d e s ) ;
eye(nm odes) ];
8 k C = P S I\B brg*K brg*C brgs»P hi . d e l t a ;
B z C = P S I\B b rg * Z b rg * C b rg s * P h i_ d e lta ;
B u b = P S I\[B ll A r» p in v ( C r ) « x b o w _ d e lta ] ;
B1=[B11 B l l PSIVBbrg PSIV B brg z e r o s ( n r .nm odes) Bub ] * P ’ ;
C1=P*[[C11 z e ro s (n m o d e s ) ] ;
[z e ro s(n m o d e s) C21 ] ;
d iag (E k )« K b rg * C b rg * P S I ;
d ia g (E z )* Z b rg * C 2 b rg * P S I ;
[d iag (E m s) z e ro s (n m o d e s ) ] *PSI ;
z e ro s (n m o d e s + 1 ,n r) ];
C2=[Cu*PSI ;
Cm*PSI ] ;
m C l= s iz e ( C l,1 ) ;
D ll= z e r o s ( m C l) ;
D 1 2 = P * [z e ro s(m C l-(n m o d e s+ l) . n i n p u t s ) ;
[d ia g ( E m s ) * P h i_ d e lta '» B u n b s z e r o s ( n m o d e s ,1) ;
z e ro s C l.n u in p u ts ) Ebow ] ] /N d ;
D 2 1 = [z e ro s (l,(2 * n m o d e s + 2 » n b rg ) ) C u s * P h i_ d e lta z e r o s ( l ,( n m o d e s + 1 ) ) ;
z e ro s ( n s ,( 2 * n m o d e s + 2 * n b r g ) ) C m s* P h i_ d e lta z e r o s ( n s ,( n m o d e s + 1 ) ) ] * P ’ ;
D 2 2 = [z e ro s( 1 + n s, n i n p u t s ) ] /K d ;
b l k = [ - o n e s ( n r + 2 « n b r g ,1) z e r o s ( n r + 2 * n b r g ,l ) ;
-2 * o n e s(n m o d e s,1 ) z e r o s ( n m o d e s ,1 ) ;
-1 0 ;
n i n p u ts 1 ];
X g e n e r a te f r e q u e n c y d a t a
om ega_H z= logspace( 0 , 3 , p o i n t s ) ;
om ega_rps= om ega_H z*2*pi; om ega_rpm=om ega_Hz»60;
sm a rl2 = 0 ;
gamma—1;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( 'c o n s t r u c t i n g e s t i m a t o r a t Xd f r e q u e n c ie s from Xd Hz t o Xd H z__

p o i n t s , o m e g a .H z ( l) , o m e g a _ H z ( p o in ts ) ) ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
f o r i= i:p o in ts ,
u = o m e g a _ rp s (i) ;
X N om inal O p tim a l E s t im a to r
Bd=PSIV[Bunb*(w~2) Bbou ] / N d ;
G = i n v ( ( j » w * I r ) - A r ) ; Pmd=Cm«PSI*G*Bd; Pud=Cu*PSI*G*Bd;
[G ,S ,V ]= sv d (P m d ); V r o w = V ( : , l : n s ) ; V n u l l = V ( : ,n s + l : s i z e ( P m d ,2 ) ) ;
T ll=Pm d*V ro»; T 12=P m d*V null; s= m ax (sv d (T 1 2 )) ; i f s> sm ax l2 s m a z l2 = s ; end
T21=Pud*Vrow; T 2 2 = P u d * V n u ll;
T = T 2 1 « in v (T ll);
X s v d a n a l y s i s , n o m in a l T
T e= Pud-(T *Pm d); [ U ,S ,V ]= s v d ( T e );
fm ax = V (:, 1 ) ;
Fm ax=Nd\fm ax;
NF=Hd*Fmax; N F norm (i)= norm (H d«F m ar) ;
f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s , N F u m a g (i,k )= a b s (N F (k )) ; e n d ; N F b m a g (i)= a b s(N F (n im p u ts)) ;
Ym-Pmd*fmax; f o r k = l : n s , y m ( i,k ) = a b s ( Y m ( k ) ) ; e n d ;
Fm = inv(T ll)«Y m ; f o r k = l : n s , f m ( i,k ) = a b s ( F m ( k ) ) ; e n d ;
Yu_estm (i)=T*Y m ;
A PP EN D IX E. M A TLA B SC R IPT FILES 142
Y u( i ) = Pud»fm ax;
e l s v d ( i ) “ Y u ( i ) - Y u _ e s t m ( i ) ; Z e ls v d ( i) = m a x ( 3 v d ( T e ) ) ;
X mu a n a l y s i s , n o m in a l T
P11=C1*C*B1+D11; P12=Cl*G*Bd+D12;
P21=C2*G*B1+D21; P22=C2»G*Bd+D22;
d i s p C s p r i n t f C’ i : Z d , c o m p u tin g e s t i m a t i o n e r r o r (nom inal T ) — ' . i ) ) ;

gam m a_last_freq= gam m a;
[g a m m a ,b n d s]= m u a n a g (g a m m a _ la s t_ fre q ,T ,P ll ,P 1 2 ,P 2 1 ,P 2 2 ,b l k ) ;
elm u(i)= gam m a;
d is p C ’ a tt e m p t i n g t o s y t h e s i z e a b e t t e r T.
gam m a_old= l;
a h i l e a b s (gam m a-gam m a_old) > . 1 »gamma_old,
gamma_old=gamma;
[Tnew ]=m usynTCgam m a,T,Pll ,P 1 2 ,P 2 1 ,P 2 2 ,b l k ) ;

T=Tneu;
[g a am a_new ,bnds]= m uanag(gam m a,T ne»,P ll , P 1 2 ,P 2 1 ,P 2 2 ,b l k ) ;

gamma=gainnia_new;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’ Gamma=7.f. Mu=%f’ , gamma, b n d s ( l ) ) ) ;
end;
e 2 sv d (i)= m a x (s v d (P u d -T n e w * P m d ));
e2mu(i}=gam ma;
r e d u c t io n - 1 0 0 « a b s ( e l m u ( i ) - e 2 m u ( i ) ) /e lm u ( i ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f C 'i:% d , r e d u c t i o n i n gamma.: X i 7 .X ’ , i . r e d u c tio n )) ;
d is p C ’ ' ) ;
end;
d isp C ’ d o n e .’) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’e x e c u t i o n tim e ; X I m in, (Xf h r s ) ’ , . . .
(c p u tim e -s ta rt_ tim e )/6 0 , ( c p u tim e -s ta rt_ tim e )/3 6 0 0 ));
f o r i= l:p o in ts ,
y o u t ( i , 1 ) =omega_Hz( i ) ;
y o u t( i,2 ) = a b s ( Y u _ e 3 tm (i) ) ;
y o u t ( i , 3 ) = a b s ( e l s v d ( i ) ) ; y o u t ( i ,4 ) = a b s C e l m u ( i ) ) ;
y o u t ( i , S ) - a b s ( e 2 s v d ( i ) ) ; y o u t ( i ,6 ) = a b s ( e 2 m u ( i ) ) ;
end;
s a v e y o u t = s p r i n t f (* s a v e XsZdXdmusb7,d.dat y o u t - a s c i i - d o u b l e ' , . . .
f i l e i d l , n s , p y c sn o , f i l e i d 2 ) ;
e v a l(s a v e y o u t);
omega=omega_Hz; xm in = o m eg a(l) ; rm ax = o m eg a(p o in ts) ;

x l = 1 0 " ( l o g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + .l ) ; x2=10‘ ( l o g l0 ( o m e g a ( l) )-t-.9) ;
v l = o n e s ( p o i n t s , l ) ; r e f = [ l e - 3 * v l le - 4 « v l ] ;
fig u re (1 );
s u b p l o t C l . 1 , 1 ) , lo g lo g ( o m e g a ,a b s ( Y u ) , o m eg a ,a b s(Y u _ estm ) , • : ’ , —
o m e g a ,a b s (e ls v d ) , ’ — ’ , o m e g a ,a b s(e lm n ) , ’ — ’ , —
o m e g a ,a b s(e 2 sv d ) , ' : ’ .om ega,absC e2m u)
o m e g a ,r e f , ’ — ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l C R e s p o n s e ') ;
y m in = le -1 0 ; y m a r= le O ;
v = [n a in xmax ym in ym ax ]; a x i s ( v ) ;
X v = a x is;
d y = lo g l 0 ( v ( 4 ) ) - lo g lO C v ( 3 ) ) ;
y 2 = 1 0 - (lo g l0 (v ( 3 ) )+ ( d y * .8 ) );
yl= 10* C l o g l 0 ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * . 2 ) ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’Y u . a c t l , Y u_estm ’ ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y l . ’Yu_e, Yu_e_mu’ ) ;
x l a b e l ( ’F re q u e n c y ( H z )’ ) ;
fig u re (2 );
s u b p l o t ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) , se m ilo g x ( om ega, NFumag, om ega, NFbmag, ’— ' , omega, NFnorm, ' : ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’M a g n itu d e ') ;
y m in = -.0 5 ; ym ax=l.0 5 ;
v = [rm in xmax ymin ym ax]; a x i s ( v ) ;
2 v = a x is ;
dy3 ymax- y m in ;
y 2 = v ( 3 )+ (d y * . 9 ) ;
y l = v ( 3 ) + ( d y * .2 ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’norm (Nd*Fm ax)’ ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y l , ’Nd*Fmax’ ) ;
x l a b e l ( ’F re q u e n c y ( H z )’ ) ;
APPEN D IX E. M A T L A B SC RIPT FILES 144
E.3 eyu sp m a .m
X eyuspma.m
X C o m p u tatio n o f M axim ized E s tim a tio n E r r o r v i a HIT A n a ly s is w i t h S peed Dip
c l e a r ; fo rm a t lo n g ; s t a r t_ t i m e = c p u t im e ;
r o to m a m e = '3 - B e a r in g R o t o r ’ ;
f i l e i d l - 'm ’ ;
file id 2 = l;
p y c sn o = 3 ;
s e n s t n - [ 2 ; 15 ; 21 ] ; X sen so r s ta tio n s
unm stns 1 8 ; X u n m ea su ra b le s t a t i o n
c r t_ c lr = . 005; X c r i t i c a l c le a r a n c e , i n
u n b s tn - [ 3 ; 6 ; 11 ; 14 ; 22 ; 24 ] ; X u n b a la n c e s t a t i o n s
Wr=233; X r o t o r s e i g h t , Ibm
N -5200; X max o p e r a t in g s p e e d , rpm
bo»_m ag=.005; X bov m a g n itu d e , i n
b r g s tn = [ 3 ; 14 ; 22 ] ; X b e a r in g s t a t i o n s
k b l= 5 0 0 0 0 ; k b 2 = k b l; k b 3 = k b l; X b e a r in g s t i f f n e s s , I b f / i n
z b l= 1 0 0 ; z b 2 = z b l; z b 3 = z b l; X and dam ping, l b f - s / i s
p o i n ts - 3 0 0 ; X fre q u e n c y d a t a p o i n t s
a lp h a - .05; X speed v a r i a t i o n , X
n s = s iz e (s e n s tn ,l);
m y t i t l e - s p r i n t f C’eynspm a.m : 2 s . Xd S e n s o rs , PYCS *Xd ( S t a t i o n tX d ) ' . —

ro to r n a m e , n s , p y c s n o , u n m stn );
d is p (’ ’);
d is p C ’eyuspm a.m : C o m p u ta tio n o f M aximized E s tim a tio n E r r o r v i a MU An a l y s i s t r i t h 1 S peed D ip ’ ) ;
d is p C ’ ’ ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’r o t o r m o d e l: X s, Xd s e n s o r s , c r i t i c a l p o i n t tX d ( s t a t i o n *X d)1, . . .
r o to r n a m e , n s , p y c sn o , u n m stn )); p a n s e C l) ;
d is p C ’) ;
d i s p ( ’ l o a d i n g r o t o r m o d el d a t a f i l e s — ’ ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
lo a d A r.m a t - a s c i i ;
lo a d B r.m a t - a s c i i ;
lo a d C r.m a t - a s c i i ;
n r ^ s i z e C A r . l ) ; I r = e y e ( n r ) ; n m odes= nr/2;
X in p u t m a t r i c e s
n u in p u ts = s i z e ( u n b s t n , 1) ; n in p u ts = n u i n p u t s + l ;
f o r i = l : n n i n p u t n , B u n b (: , i ) - B r ( : , u n b s t n ( i ) ) ; e n d ;
nb rg = s i z e ( b r g s t n , 1 ) ;
f o r i = l : n b r g , B b r g ( : , i ) = B r ( : , b r g s t n ( i ) ) ; end;
X o u tp u t m a t r i c e s
f o r i = l : n s , C m ( i,: ) = C r ( s e n s t n ( i ) . : ) ; end;
C u -C r(u n m s tn ,: ) ;
f o r i = l : n b r g . C b r g ( i , : ) = C r ( b r g s t n ( i ) , : ) ; end;
C 2 b rg = [z e ro s (n b rg ,n m o d e s ) CbrgC: , 1 : nmodes) ] ;
X u n i t n o rm a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a tr ix ( t r a n s l a t i o n s o n ly )
n s ta tio n s = s iz e ( M S l,l) ;
X mass n o r m a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a tr ix (c o m p le te : t r a n s l a t i o n s a n d r o t a t i o n s )

X g e n e r a te u n b a la n c e f o r c e s
gc= 386; U ap i= 4 * W r/(H * 1 6 « g c);
N d = z e r o s (n in p u ts ) ; f o r k = l :n u in p u ts K d (k ,k )= l/U a p i; e n d ;
A P P E N D IX E. M A TLA B S C R IP T FILES 145
X g e n e r a te bow f o r c e s
snodel= H S l(: , 4 ) ;
b o w = m o d e l-l; xbow = -bow /m ax(abs(bow )) ;
e l s e b o s= m o d el+ l; x b o w = bov/m ax(abs(bow )) ;
end;
B bov = A r» p in v (C r) »xbow; N d ( n in p u ts , n i n p u t s )= 1 /bow_m ag;
X add b e a rin g s
K b rg = [k b l 0 0 ;
0 kb2 0 ;
0 0 kb3 ] ;
Z b rg = [ z b l 0 0 ;
0 zb 2 0 ;
0 0 zb3 ] ;
K Z brg=[K brg z e ro sC n b rg ) ;
z e r o s ( n b r g ) Z brg ];
A =A r+ [-B brg -B brg] «KZbrg» [C brg ;

C 2brg 3 ;
d i s p C ’tr a n s f o r m i n g to m odal c o o r d i n a t e s . . . ’ )
C P S I]= tfm (A );
A r= P S I\A *P S I;
i f m i n ( a b s ( i m a g ( e i g ( A r ) ) ) ) < l , d i s p C ’WARNING, m odel may be o v e r d a m p e d .’ ) ; e n d ;
X m odal f r e q u e n c y e r r o r
E w = [.02 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5 .0 6 .0 7 ] ;
C w = A r(nm odes+1;nr, 1 : n m o d es)• ( 2 * d ia g (E v ) ) ;
X m odal dam ping e r r o r

E xi= C -03 .0 5 .07 .0 9 .1 1 .1 3 ] ;
C x i= A r(n m o d e s+ 1 :n r, nmodes+1 : n r ) * s q r t ( d i a g ( E x i . *2) + diag(E w . *2) ) ;
'!, mode sh a p e e r r o r
Ems=C.04 .0 7 .10 .1 3 .1 6 .1 9 ] ;
d = H S l(: . 1 ) ; C p h i _ d e l t a ] = m s u n c e r t ( d ,s e n s t n ) ;
MSm2=MSm*PSI;
f o r i = l ; nm odes, P h i _ d e l t a ( : , i)= p h i_ d e lta » m a x (a b s (M S m 2 (l i n s t a t i o n s , i ) ) ) ; e n d ;
X b e a rin g c o e f f ic ie n t e r r o r
E Jc = [.l .1 . 1 ] ;
E z = [. 1 .1 . 1 ] ;
X bow e r r o r
E bow =.1; x b o w _ d e lta = M S l(: , 5 ) *bow_mag;
X i n p u t a n d o u tp u t s e l e c t i o n m a t r i c e s
B u n b s = z e r o s ( n a t a t i o n s ,n u i n p u t s ) ; f o r i = l r n u i n p u t s , B u n b s (u n b s tn ( i) , i ) = l ; e n d ;
B b r g s = z e r o s ( n a t a t i o n s ,n b r g ) ; f o r i = l : n b r g , B b r g s ( b r g s t n ( i ) , i ) = l ; e n d ;
C b rg s = z e r o s ( n b r g ,n a ta tio n s ); f o r i= l : n b r g , C b r g s ( i ,b r g s t n ( i ) ) = l; end;
C u s = z e r o s ( l . n a t a t i o n s ) ; C u s( 1 , u n m s tn ) - 1 ;
C m s = z e r o s ( n s ,n a t a t i o n s ) ; f o r i = l : n s , C m s ( i , s e n s t n ( i ) ) = l ; end;
X LFT c o n s t r u c t i o n
Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 G 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A P P E N D IX E. M A TLA B SC R IP T FILES 146
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1];
P= [e y e ( n r + 2 * n b r g ) z e r o s ( n r + 2 * n b r g ,s iz e ( P m s ,2 ) ;
z e r o s ( s i z e ( P m s , 1 ) ,n r+ 2 * n b rg ) Pms ] ;
A=[Ar z ero s(n r) ;

z e r o s ( n r ) Ar ];
I2 r= e y e (2 * n r);
B w x = [ze ro s(n m o d e s) ;
e y e (n m o d e s ) ];
8 k C = P S IV B b rg * K b rg » C b rg s« P h i_ d elta;
B z C = P S IV B b rg * Z b rg » C b rg s» P h i_ d e lta ;
Bub=PSlV[Bvx A r» p in v ( C r ) * r b o v _ d e lta ] ;
Bl=[Btrx B b x PSIV Bbrg PSIVBbrg z e ro s (n r,n m o d e s ) Bub ] » P ‘ ;
C l= P * [[C u z e ro s(n m o d e s) ]
[z e ro s (n m o d e s ) C xi ]
d ia g ( E k ) «K brg»C brg»PSI
d ia g (E z )* Z b rg » C 2 b rg » P S I
[d ia g (E m s ) z e ro s(n m o d e s) ] *PSI
z e r o s ( ( n m o d e s + 1 ) ,n r ) ];
C2=[Cu*PSI ;
Cm*PSI ;
Cm*PSI ] ;
n D e lta - s iz e ( C l.l) ;
D ll= z e r o s (n D e lta );
D 1 2 1 = P * [z e ro s (n D e lta -(n m o d e s+ 1 ) . n i n p u t s ) ;
[ d ia g ( E m s ) « P h i_ d e lta '« B u n b s z e r o s ( n m o d e s .l) ;
z e ro s (l.n u in p u ts ) Ebov ] ]/N d ;
□1 2 -[D121 D121 ] ;
D 2 1 u = [ z e r o s ( l. (2 * n m o d es+ 2 * n b rg )) C u s * P h i_ d e lta z e r o s ( 1 , (n m o d e s+ 1 )) ] » P ’ ;
D 2 1 m = [z e ro s(n 3 , (2*nm o d es+ 2 * n b rg )) C m s» P h i_ d e lta z e r o s ( n s . (n m o d e s+ 1 )) ] * P ’ ;
D21=[D21u ;
D21m ;
D21m ] ;
D 2 2 = [z e ro s ( l + 2 * n s , 2 « n i n p u ts ) ] /H d ;
b l k = [ - o n e s ( n r + 2 « n b r g , 1) z e r o s ( n r + 2 « n b r g , 1)
-2 * o n e s ( n m o d e s ,1 ) z e r o s (n m o d e s ,1)
-1 0
n in p u ts 1 ];
X g e n e ra te fre q u e n c y d a ta
o m eg a _ H z = lo g sp a c e ( 0 , 3 , p o i n t s ) ;
o m ega_rps= om ega_H z«2«pi; omega_rpm=omega_Hz«60;
sm a x l2 = 0 ;
a = l;
d i s p ( s p r i n t f ( 'c o n s t r u c t i n g e s t i m a t o r a t Xd f r e q u e n c ie s fro m Xd Hz t o Xd H z . . . ' ,

p o i n t s , o m eg a _ H z (l), o m e g a _ H z (p o in ts)) ) ; p a u s e ( 1 ) ;
fo r i= l:p o in ts ,
u = o m e g a _ r p s ( i) ;
X T r a n s m i s s i b i l i t y E s tim a to r
Bd=PSIV [Bunb*(w“2 ) Bbow ]/B d ;
G = i n v ( ( j » w * I r ) - A r ) ; Pmd=Cm»PSI*G«Bd; Pud=Cu«PSI*G*Bd;
APPEN D IX E. M A T L A B SC RIPT FILES 147
O J.S ,V ]*svd(Pm d) ; V rou=V (: , l : n s ) ; V null»V (: , n s + l : s i z e ( P m d ,2 ) ) ;

Tll=Pmd*Vrow; T 12=Pm d*V null; s= m a x (s v d (T 1 2 )); i f s> sm a x l2 sm axl2= s; e n d ;
T21=Pud*Vrow; T 2 2 = P u d * V n u ll;
T = T 2 1 * in r( T ll) ;
Te=Pud-T*Pmd; [U ,S ,V ]= svdC T e) ;
fm ax=V (: , 1 ) ;
Fmax=Hd\fmax;
NF=Nd«Fmax; N F norm (i)= norm (N d»F m ax);
f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s , N Fum agCi,k) = a b s(H F (k )) ; e n d ; N F b m a g (i)= a b s(N F (n in p u ts)) ;
Ym=Pmd«fmax; f o r f c = l :n s , y m (i.k )= a b s (Y m ( k ) ); e n d ;
Y u(i)= P u d * fm ax ;
e y u l( i ) = Y u ( i ) - Y u _ e s t m ( i ) ; X e y u la ( i)= m a x ( s v d (T e )) ;
X sp e e d d ip
» * (l-a lp h a )* o m e g a _ rp s (i);
B d2=PSI\[Bunb»w*2 Bbov ]/N d ; G = in v ( ( j« w « I r ) - V r ) ; Pmd2=Cm*PSI*G«Bd2;
Pmd=[Pmd ;
Pmd2 ] ;
[tJ,S,V ]=svd(Pm d) ; V rov= V (: . 1 : 2 * n s ) ; V n u l l = V ( :,2 » n s + l: s i z e ( P m d ,2 ) ) ;
Tll=Pmd»Vrow; T 12=Pm d*V null; s= m ax (sv d (T 1 2 )) ; i f s> sm a x l2 sm ax l2 = s; e n d ;
T21=Pud*Vrow; T 22= P u d * V n u ll;
T 2 = T 2 1 * in v (T ll) ;
Ym2=[Ym ;
Pmd2*fmax ] ;
Yu_estm 2(i)=T2«Y m 2;
e y u 2 ( i) = Y u ( i ) - Y u _ e s t m 2 ( i ) ;
X mu a n a l y s i s
Bds= [Bd Bd2 ] ;
P11=C1»G*B1+D11; P12=Cl*G«Bds+D12;
P21=C2»G»B1+D21;
P22=[Cu«PSI*G«Bd z e r o s ( 1 , n i n p u ts ) ;
Cm*PSI*G*Bd z e r o s C n s ,n in p u ts ) ;
z e r o s ( n s . n i n p u t s ) Cm*PSI*G*Bd2 ];
gam m a_last_freq= gam m a;

[gamma, b n d s] =muanag (g a m m a _ la st_ f r e q , T2, P1 1 , P 1 2 , P 2 1 , P 2 2 , b l k ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( * i:7 .d , Gamma=/Cf. Mu='/.f1, i . gamma, b n d s ( l ) ) ) ;
eyu3(i)= gam m a;
end;
d is p C ’ . . . d o n e . ' ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( 'e x e c u t i o n tim e : X t m in, C/.f h r s ) ’ , —
(c p u tim e -s ta rt_ tim e )/6 0 , ( c p u tim e -s ta rt_ tim e )/3 6 0 0 ));
f o r i= l:p o in ts .
y o u t ( i,l) = o m e g a _ H z ( i) ;
y o u tC i,2 ) = a b s ( Y u _ e s tm 2 ( i) ) ;
y o u t ( i,3 ) - a b s ( e y u l ( i) ) ; y o u t( i,4 )= a b s ( e y u 2 (i)) ; y o u t( i,S ) = a b s ( e y u 3 ( i) ) ;
end;
s a v e y o u t = s p r i n t f ( 's a v e %s%d%dspma%d.dat y o u t - a s c i i - d o u b l e '. f i l e i d l . n s , p y c s n o , f i l e i d 2 ) ;

omega-omega_Hz; xm in = o m eg a(l) ; xm ax= om ega(points) ;

x l= 1 0 “ ( l o g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + . l ) ; x 2 = 1 0 " ( lo g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + .9 ) ;
v l = o n e s ( p o i n t s , l ) ; r e f = [ l e - 3 « v l le - 4 « v l ] ;
APPEND IX E. M A TLA B SC R IP T FILES
fig o re (l);
s u b p l o t ( l . l . l ) , loglo g C o m eg a, a b a ( Y u ) , . . .
o m e g a ,a b s (Y u .e s tm ), ’ : ’ , o m e g a ,a b s(Y u _ e stm 2 ), ’ : ’ , —
o m e g a ,a b s ( e y u l) , ’ — ’ , o m e g a ,a b s (e y u 2 ), ’ — ’ , —
o m eg a ,a b sC e y u 3 ), ’ — ’ , o m e g a ,r e f . ’ — ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l C ’R e s p o n s e ’ ) ;
y m in = le - 1 0 ; ymax=leO;
v = [xm in zmaz ym in ym ax]; a z i s ( v ) ;
X v = a x is;
d y = lo g l0 ( v ( 4 ) ) - lo g l0 ( v ( 3 ) ) ;
y 2 = 1 0 '( lo g l 0 ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * . 8 ) ) :
y l = 1 0 * ( lo g lO ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * . 2 ) ) ;
t e x t ( i l . y 2 , ’Y u . a c t l , Y u_estm ’ ) ;
t e x t C x l . y l , ’Y u_e, Yu_e_mu’ ) ;
x l a b e K ’F re q u e n cy (H z )’ ) ;
fig u re (2 );
s u b p l o t ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) , sem ilogxCom ega.N Fum ag,om ega,N Fbm ag, ’ — ’ , om ega, NFnorm,
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’M a g n itu d e * ) ;
y m in = -.0 5 ; ym ax= l.0 5 ;
v = [xm in xmax ym in ym ax ]; a x i s ( v ) ;
Z v = a x is ;
dy=ym ax-ym in;
y 2 = v(3)+ C dy*. 9 ) ;
y l= v (3 ) + C d y * .2 );
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’norm (N d«Fm ax)’ ) ;
t e x t C x l . y l , ’Hd»Fmax’ ) ;
x l a b e K ’F re q u e n cy ( H z )’ ) ;
A P P E N D IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES 149
E .4 ey u b n d k .m
X eyubndk.m
X C o m p u ta tio n o f M axim ized E s t im a ti o n E r r o r v i a Kalman f i l t e r ,
c l e a r a l l ; fo rm a t l o n g ;
r o to r a a m e = ’3 - B e a r in g R o t o r ’ ;
f i l e i d l = ’m’ ;
file id 2 = l;
p y c sn o = 3 ;
s e n s t n - [ 2 ; 15 ; 2 1 ] ; X sensor stations
u n m stn = 1 8 ; X unmeasurable stations
c r t _ c l r = .0 0 5 ; X c ritic a l clearance
u n b s t n - [ 3 ; 6 ; 11 ; 14 ; 22 ; 24 ]; X unbalance locations
Wr=233; X rotor weight
H=5200; X operating speed
bow_mag=.0 0 5 ; X bow magnitude
b r g s t n = [ 3 ; 14 ; 22 ] ; X bearing stations
k b l= 5 0 0 0 0 ; k b 2 = k b l; k b 3 = k b l; X bearing stiffness, lb f/in
z b l- 1 0 0 ; z b 2 = z b l; z b 3 = z b l; X and damping, lb f-s/in
p o in ts - 3 0 0 ; X frequency data points
n s - s iz e (s e n s tn .l) ;
m y t i t l e = s p r i n t f ( ’ey u b n d k .m : X s, Xd S e n s o r s , PYCS #Xd ( S t a t i o n t X d ) ’ , —

r o t o m a m e , n s , p y c s n o , unm stn) ;
d is p C ’) ;
d i s p C ’ eyubndk.m : C o m p u ta tio n o f M axim ized E s tim a tio n E r r o r v i a Kalman F i l t e r 1) ;
d is p C ’ ’ ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’f r e e - f r e e r o t o r m o d e l: X s, Xd s e n s o r s , c r i t i c a l p o i n t *Xd ( s t a t i o n # X d )’ . . . .
r o to m a m e , n s , p y c s n o , unm stn) ) ;
d is p C ’) ; p a u s e d );
d i s p ( ’ l o a d i n g r o t o r m odel d a t a f i l e s . . . ’ ) ; p a u s e d ) ;
l o a d Ar .m a t - a s c i i ;
lo a d B r.m a t - a s c i i ;
l o a d C r.m a t - a s c i i ;
n r = s i z e ( A r , l ) ; d im A r= n r; I r = e y e ( n r ) ; n m odes= nr/2;
X in p u t m a tric e s
n u in p u ts = s iz e ( u n b s t n , 1) ; n i n p u t s = n u m p u t s + l ;
f o r i = l : n u i n p u t s , B u n b ( : , i ) - B r ( : , u n b s t n ( i ) ) ; en d ;
n b r g = s iz e ( b r g s tn ,1 );
f o r i = l : n b r g , B b r g ( : , i ) = B r ( : . b r g s t n ( i ) ) ; end;
X o u tp u t m a tric e s
f o r i - l : n s , C m ( i,: ) - C r ( s e n s tn ( i ) , : ) ; end;
C u = C r(u n m stn ,: ) ;
f o r i = l : n b r g , C b r g C i,: ) = C r ( b r g s m ( i ) . : ) ; end;
C 2brg= [z e r o s ( n b r g ,n m o d e s ) CbrgC : ,1 :nm odes) ] ;
X u n i t n o r m a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a t r i x ( t r a n s l a t i o n s o n ly )
X m ass n o r m a liz e d mode s h a p e s m a t r i x (c o m p le te : t r a n s l a t i o n s a n d r o t a t i o n s )

X g e n e r a t e u n b a la n c e f o r c e s
gc = 3 8 6 ; U ap i= 4 * W r/(N » 1 6 « g c);
H d = z e r o s ( n in p u ts ) ; f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s H d ( k ,k ) = l/O a p i; end
X g e n e r a t e bow f o r c e s
m o d e l= M S l(:,4 );
A P P E N D IX E. M A TLA B S C R IP T FILES
b o v = m o d e l-l; x b o v = -b o u /m ax (a b s(b o w )) ;
e l s e b ov= m odel+ l; xbow = bo»/m ax(abs(bow )) ;
end;
B bov= A r«pinv ( C r) *xbow; N d ( n in p u ts , n i n p u t s )= 1 /b o u .m a g ;
X add b e a rin g s
K b rg = [k b l 0 0 ;
0 kb2 0 ;
0 0 kb3 ] ;
Z b rg = [z b l 0 0 ;
0 zb 2 0 ;
0 0 zb3 ] ;
KZbrg= CKbrg zero s(n b rg ) ;
z e r o s (n b rg ) Z brg ] ;
A r= A r+ [-B b rg -B brg]*K Z brg*[C brg ;

C 2brg ] ;
X g e n e r a t e fre q u e n c y d a t a
om ega_H z= logspace ( 0 ,3 . p o i n t s ) ;
om ega_rps= om ega_H x*2*pi; om ega_rpm -om ega_H z*60;
W o = l» e y e (2 );
V o = le - 7 * e y e ( n s ) ;
sm a x l2 = 0 ;
d i s p ( s p r i n t f ( 'c o n s t r u c t i n g Kalman F i l t e r a t Xd f r e q u e n c i e s from Xd Hz t o Xd H z—

p o i n t s , o m e g a _ H z (l), o m e g a .H z ( p o i n t s ) ) ) ; p a u s e ( l ) ;
fo r i= l:p o in ts ,
u = o m e g a _ r p s ( i) ;
X e s tim a to r c o n s tru c tio n

Bd=[Bunb*(w“ 2 ) Bbov]/Hd;
G = in v ( ( j» w « I r ) - A r ) ; Pmd=Cm*G*Bd; Pud=Cu*G*Bd;
[U ,S ,V ]= sv d (P m d ); V r o w = V ( :,l:n s ) ; V n u l l = V ( : , n s + l : s i z e ( P m d , 2 ) ) ;
Tll=Pm d*V row ; T12=Pmd«Vnull; s = m a x (s v d (T 1 2 )); i f s> sm a x l2 sm a rl2 = s; end
T21=Pud*Vrow; T22=Pud«V null;
T = T 2 1 » in v (T ll) ;
X sv d a n a l y s i s
Te=Pud-T*Pm d; [U ,S ,V ]= sv d (T e) ;
fmax=V( : , 1 ) ;
Fm ax=H d\fm ax;
NF=Nd»Fmax; f o r k = l : n u i n p u t s , N F u m a g (i,k )= a b s ( H F ( k ) ); e n d ;
H F b m a g (i)= a b s(H F (n in p u ts) ) ; N F nora(i)= norm (N d*F m ax) ;
Ym=Pmd*fmax; f o r k = l : n s , y m (i,k )= a b s (Y m (k )) ; e n d ;
F m = inv(T ll)*Y m ; f o r k = l : n s , f m e ( i , k ) - a b s ( F m ( k ) ) ; e n d ;
Y u (i)= P u d * fm ax ;
e y u l ( i ) = Y u ( i ) - Y u _ e s t m ( i ) ; X e y u 2 (i)= m a x (s v d ( T e ));
X kalm an f i l t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n
A d = z e ro s (2 * n s ): d im A d = s iz e (A d ,l);
A d l= [0 1 ; -(w “2) 0 ] ;
f o r i i = l : n s , f o r j j = l : 2 , f o r k k = l:2 , A d ( 2 * ii+ jj- 2 ,2 * ii+ k k - 2 ) = A d l( jj,k k ) ; e n d ; e n d ; end;
B d l= [-1 /w 0 ; 0 1 ];
f o r i i = l : n s , f o r j j » l : 2 , f o r k k = l : 2 , B d n ( 2 « i i + j j - 2 , k k ) = F m ( i i ) * B d l ( j j ,k k ) ; e n d ; e n d ; en d
C d l= [0 1 ] ;
f o r i i - l : n s , f o r j j = l : 2 , C d r ( i i , 2 * i i + j j - 2 ) = C d l ( l , j j ) ; e n d ; end;
A= [A r Bd*Vrow»Cdr ;
z ero s(d im A d .d im A r) Ad ];
APPEND IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES
B -[z e ro s (d im A r,2 ) ;
Bdn ];
C=[Cm z e r o s ( n s , dimAd)] ;
dim A * size(A , 1 ) ; n=dimA;
H=[A’ -C ’ * inv(V o)*C ;

-B*Wo*B* -A ];
[PHI,LAMDA]=eig(H); [ s ,in d e x ] = s o r t( r e a l( d ia g ( L A M D A ) ) ) ; P h i= P H I(: . i n d e x ) ;
f o r i i = l : n , e ig H ( ii,l) = L A M D A ( in d e x ( ii) , i n d e x ( i i ) ) ; end;
p h i l l s P h i ( l : n , l : n ) ; p h i2 1 = P h i( n + l:2 * n ,l:n );
P = p h i 2 1 * p in v ( p h i l l) ;
Lo=*P*C’ * in v (V o );
Ao=A-Lo*C;
Cmo=C; Cuo=[C u z e r o s ( 1 , dimAd) ] ; C d o = [z e ro s(n s,d im A x ) C dr ] ;
[ T ,e v a l s ] = e i g ( A o ) ; T in v = in v ( T ) ; I o = e y e ( s i z e ( A o . l ) > ;
G =T *pinv( j * v * Io -T in v * A o « T )» T in v ;
Tmom=Cmo»G*Lo; Tuom=Cuo«G»Lo; Tdom=Cdo«G*Lo;
Ym_obsv=Tmom*Ym; f o r k = l : n s , y m o (i,k )= a b s (Y m _ o b s v (k )); end;

Fm_obsv=Tdom*Ym; f o r k = l : n o , f m o (i.k )= a b s (F in _ o b s v (k )) ; end;
Y u_obsv( i ) =Tuom* Ym;
e y u k ( i) = Y n ( i) - Y u _ o b s v ( i) ;
en d
d i s p C . . .d o n e . ’ ) ;
d i s p C s p r i n t f ( 'c h e c k : max s i n g u l a r v a lu e o f T12 = I t ( s h o u ld be z e r o ) ' , . . .
sm a x l2 )) ;
f o r i= l:p o in ts ,
y o u t ( i , l ) = o m e g a .H z ( i ) ;
y o u t( i,2 ) = a b s ( Y u .e s tm ( i) ) ; y o u t( i,3 ) = a b s ( Y u _ o b s v ( i) ) ;
y o u t( i.4 ) - a b s ( e y u l( i) ) ; y o u t(i,5 )= a b s (e y u k (i));
end
s a v e y o u t = s p r i n t f ( ’s a v e %s‘Z.d'Zdmxek7.d. d a t y o u t - a s c i i - d o u b le 1. . . .
f i l e i d l , n s , py csn o , f i l e i d 2 ) ;
omega=omega_Hz; x m in = o m e g a (l); x m a x = o m e g a (p o in ts);

x l = 1 0 " ( l o g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + .l ) ; x2=10‘ ( l o g l 0 ( o m e g a ( l ) ) + . 9 ) ;
v l= o n e s (p o in ts ,1 ); re f= [ le - 3 * v l le - 4 » v l] ;
fig u re d ) ;
s u b p l o t ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) , lo g lo g (o m e g a ,a b s (Y u _ e s tm ) , * : ’ .o m e g a ,a b s(Y u .o b sv )
o m e g a ,a b s ( e y u l) , ' — ' .o m e g a ,a b s (e y u k )
o m e g a ,r e f , ' — ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’R e s p o n s e ') ;
y m in = le -2 0 ; ymax=leO;
v= [xm in xmax ymin ym ax]; a x i s ( v ) ;
'/.v = a x is;
d y = lo g l0 (v (4 ))-lo g l0 (v (3 ));
y 2 = 1 0 - ( l o g l 0 ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * .8 ) ) ;
y l = 1 0 * ( l o g l 0 ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * .2 ) ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , 'e y u l , e y u k ’ ) ;
t e x t C x l . y l , ’Yu_e, Yu_o’ ) ;
x la b e lC 'F r e q u e n c y ( H z )’ ) ;
fig u re (2 );
s u b p l o t ( 2 , 1 , 1 ) , lo g lo g (o m e g a ,a b s (y m ) , o m e g a ,a b s(y m o ), ’ : ’ , o m e g a ,r e f , ’ — ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( 'R e s p o n s e ') ;
y m in - le - 2 0 ; ymax=leO;
v= (xm in xmax ymin ym ax]; a x i s ( v ) ;
'/.v = a x is;
A PPEND IX E. M A TLA B S C R IP T FILES 152
d y = lo g l0 (v (4 ))-lo g l0 (v (3 ));
y l= 1 0 " ( lo g l0 ( v (3 ) ) + ( d y * .2 ) ) ;
t e x t C x l . y l , ’Ym’ ) ;
s u b p l o t ( 2 .1 , 2 ) , lo g lo g (o m e g a , a b s (fm e ) , o m e g a ,a b s (fm o ), ’ — ’ ) ;
y l a b e l ( ’M a g n itu d e ’ ) ;
y m in = le -2 0 ; ym ax=leO;
v= [xm in xmax ym in ym ax); a x i s ( v ) ;
X v * a x is;
d y = lo g lO (v (4 ) ) - l o g l O ( v ( 3 ) ) ;
y 2 = 1 0 ~ ( lo g l 0 ( v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y » .8 ) ) ;
y l = 1 0 '( l o g l 0 C v ( 3 ) ) + ( d y * . 2 ) ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’Fm _estm, Fm _obsv’ ) ;
x l a b e K ’F re q u e n c y (Hz) ’ ) ;
f ig u r e (3 );
3 u b p l o t ( 1 ,1 , 1 ) , sem ilogx(om ega,!fF um ag,om ega,N Fbm ag, ’ — ’ .om ega,N Fnorm , ’ : ’ ) ;
t i t l e ( m y t i t l e ) ; y l a b e l ( ’M a g n itu d e ’ ) ;
y m in = -. OS; ym ax=1.05;
v= [xm in xmax ym in ym ax]; a x i s ( v ) ;
X v = a x is;
dy=ym ax-ym in;
y 2 = v ( 3 ) + ( d y » .9 ) :
y l= v (3 )+ (d y * -2 );
t e x t ( x l , y 2 , ’norm (N d*Fm ax)’ ) ;
t e x t ( x l , y 1 , ' Nd*Fmax’ ) ;
x l a b e l ( ’F re q u e n c y (H z )’ ) ;
APPEN D IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES
E .5 tfm .m
f u n c t i o n [T] = tfm (A );
X r e t u r n s a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n m a t r i x T a h ic h w i l l
X t r a n s f o r m a dynam ic s y s te m m o d el t o m odal fo rm :
X T\A*T = [ 0 I ]
X [ d ia g ( - v * 2 ) d ia g ( - 2 z s r ) ]
s iz = s i2 e ( A ,l) ;
X f i r s t , move t o d i a g o n a l fo rm
C T ,D 3= eig(A );
[ d d ,in d ] = s o rt(a b s (im a g (d ia g (D ))));
T = T (: , i n d ) ;
D = D ( in d ,in d ) ;
d ia g (D );
T1=T;
A=T\A*T;
X f i n d t h e r e a l e i g e n v a l u e s , i f any
in d = f in d ( im a g ( d ia g ( D ) ) " = 0 ) ;
n m ax = m ax ([in d ;0 ] ) ;
X a p p ly a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o go t o r e a l form
T = e y e (s iz );
f o r i-l:2 :n m a x ,
T (i,i+ l)= li;
T ( i+ l,i) = - l;
T ( i+ l,i+ l) = li;
en d
T = T * li;
T2=T;
A=T\A*T;
A = r e a l( A ) ;
X a p p ly t h e n e x t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o go t o [0 1 ; a b] form
T = e y e (s iz );
f o r i= l:2 :n m a x .
a = A (i,i);
b = A ( i+ l,i) ;
T ( i,i) = - b ;
T ( i+ l,i) = - a ;
en d
T3=T;
A=T\A«T;
X a p p ly t h e l a s t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o go t o f u l l b lo c k form
T = z e ro s (s iz ,s iz );
f o r i-l:n m a x /2 ,
T ( 2 » i- l,i) = 1 .0 ;
T (2» i , i+ n m a x /2 )= 1 .0 ;
en d
f o r i= n m a T + l:s iz ,
T ( i,i) = 1 .0 ;
end
T4=T;
A=T\A»T;
T=T1*T2*T3*T4;
A P P E N D IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES 154
E .6 m su n cert.m
f u n c t i o n [y] = m s u n c e r tC d .s s )
X r e t u r n s a u n i t n o r m a liz e d mode sh a p e u n c e r t a i n t y v e c t o r
X f o r a g iv e n r o t o r m odel a n d s e n s o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n
n s e n s o rs = s iz e (s s ,1 );
s ta tio n s ^ s iz e C d ,1 );
f o r j = l : n s e n s o r s - l , d d s ( j ) = d ( s s ( j + l ) ) - d ( s s ( j ) ) ; end;
dd sm az= m ax (d d s);
s ta rt= l;
fo r j= l:n s e n s o rs -l,
i f j " = l s t a r t = s s ( j ) ; end;
fo r i= s ta rt:s ta tio n s ,
a= dds( j ) ;
b=ddsm ax;
c = d (s s (j));
y (i)= C a /b )* s in C (d (i)-c )« p i/a );
i f g c d ( j , 2 ) " = l y ( i ) = - y ( i ) ; end
end;
end;
i f ( d ( s s ( l ) ) - 0 ) >= d d s ( l ) / 2
fo r i= l:s s C l),
a = 4 » (d (s s (l))-0 );
b=ddsm ax;
c = d (s s (l));
y (i)= (a /b )* s in ((d (i)-c )« p i/a );
en d ;
end;
i f ( d ( s t a t i o n s ) - d ( s s ( n s e n s o r s ) ) ) >= C d d s ( n s e n s o r s - l ) ) / 2
f o r i= s s (n s e n s o rs )is ta tio n s ,
a = 4 » ( d C s ta tio n s )- d ( s s (n s e n s o rs ) ) ) ;
b=ddsm ax;
c = d (ss(n se n so rs));
y (i)= (a /b )« s in ((d C i)-c )* p i/a );
i f y C s s (n s e n s o rs )-l) > 0 , y ( i ) = - y ( i ) ; end;
end;
end;
i f m a x (a b s (y )) > i , y = y /m a x (a b s (y ) ) ; e n d ;
r=r‘;
A PPEND IX E. M A TLA B SC R IP T FILES 155
E .7 m uanag.m
f u n c t i o n [g a m m a ,b n d s]= m u a n a g (g a m m a _ in it,T ,P Il.P 1 2 ,P 2 1 ,P 2 2 ,b L k ) ;
Z R e tu rn s t h e maximum g a i n , v i a mu a n a l y s i s , by c h o ic e o f
% gamma, th r o u g h t h e LFT
Z F(H CP,T.gam m a), D e lta )
Z s u b je c t to
Z m u(M (P,T ,gam m a))<l
M11=P11; H12=P12;
M 21=[l -T ]* P 2 1 ; H 22= [l -T ]« P 2 2 ;
in it;
H=[MU H12 ;
(1/gamma)»H21 (l/gam m a)»M 22 ] ;
[ b n d s ,d v e c ,s e n s ,p v e c ,g v e c ] = m u (H ,b lk );
b is e e t = 0 ;
ite r= 3 0 ;
i f b n d s ( l ) < l , gamma.u-gamma; m u _ l= b n d s ( l) ;
w h ile b n d s ( l ) < l , gamma=.l»gamma;
M=[M11 M12 ;
(1/gamma)«M21 C1/gamma)»M22 ] ;
[ b n d s ,d v e c ,s e n s ,p v e c .g v e c ] = m uC H .blk);
i f b n d s ( l ) < l , gamma_u=gamma; m u . l - b n d s ( l ) ; en d ;
end;
g m m ^ s prniwm ; m u .u -b n d s( 1 ) ;
e l s e gamma_l=gamma; m u .u -b n d s ( 1 ) ;
w h ile b n d s ( l ) > l , gamma=10»gamma;
M=[K11 M12 ;
( 1/gamma)«M21 ( 1/gamma)»M22 ] ;
[ b n d s ,d v e c ,s e n s ,p v e c .g v e c ] = m uC H .blk);
i f b n d s ( l ) > l , gam m a.l-gam m a; m u_u=bnds( 1 ) : e n d ;
end;
gamma_u=gaimna; m u .l - b n d s ( l ) ;
end;
w h ile ( ( a b s ( l - b n d s ( l ) ) > . 0 1 ) I (gam m a.u-gam m a_l)>.C 01) t b i s e c t c i t e r ,
b is e c t= b is e c t+ l;
delta.gam m aC 1 )=(gam ma_u-gamm a_l) / 2 ;

d e lta _ g a m a a (2 )= (g a m m a _ u -g a m m a _ l)* (m u _ u -l)/(m u _ u -m u _ l);
gam m a=gam m a_l+m in(delta_gam iiia);
M =Dlll M12 ;
( 1/gamma)*M21 (l/gam m a)*M 22 ] ;
[ b n d s .d v e c .s e n s .p v e c .g v e c j = m u(M .bllc) ;
i f b u d s( 1 ) < 1 . gamma.u-gamma; m u _ l= b n d s ( l) ;
e l s e gamma_l=gamma; m u _ u = b n d s (l);
end;
Z d i s p C s p r i n t f ( ’ i : Z d , mu c a l l s : Z d . gamma=Zf mu=Zf mu_u=Zf m u_l= Z f’ . —
i , b i s e c t , t o t a l . b i s e c t , gamma, b n d s ( l ) . mu_u, m u .D ) ;
end;
i f b i s e c t > = i t e r , gamma=nax( [gamma la s t_ i t e r _ g a m i i u j ) ; end;
APPEND IX E. M A T L A B SC R IP T FILES 156
E.8 m u sy n T .m
f u n c t i o n [T n e w ]= ra u sy n T (g a m m a ,T ,P ll,P 1 2 ,P 2 1 ,P 2 2 ,b lk );
1, R e tu rn s a new g a in m a t r i x ? v i a a mu s y t h e s i s and
Y r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i t e r a t i o n a l g o r i t h m w hich re d u c e s
Y. t h e g a in th r o u g h t h e LFT
% F O K P .T ,g am m a). D e lta )
n s * s iz e (T ,2 );
try s = 0 ;
b e ta _ o ld = 1 0 ; b e ta = 0 ;
w h ile a b s ( b e t a - b e t a _ o l d ) > .0 1 k tr y s < 1 0 ,
b e ta _ o ld = b e ta ;
try s = tr y s + l;
% a ffin e re p re s e n ta tio n o f K
M=[P11 P12 ;
(1/gam m a)*C l - T > P 2 1 C l/g a m m a )« [l -T ]*P22 ] ;
H o = [P ll P12 ;
( 1/gam m a)*[1 z e r o s ( l , n s ) ] * P 2 1 ( 1/gam m a)*[1 z e r o s ( l , n s ) ] * P 2 2 ] ;
H l - C z e r o s ( s i z e C P l l . l ) ,1 ) ;
-1 ];
M 2 - [ ( l/g a m m a ) * [ z e r o s ( n s ,l) e y e (n s )3 * P 2 1 (1 /g a m m a )* C z e ro s (n s .l) e y e ( n s ) ] * P 2 2
n M l - s i z e ( M l,2 ) ; m M 2=size(M 2, 1 ) ;
[b n d s ,d v e c ,s e n s ,p v e c ,g v e c ] = m u ( M ,b lk ) ; om _u=bnds(l) ;
[D1. D r , G1, Gm, G r] =muunwrap ( d v e c , g v e c , b l k ) ;
CmDGl n D G l] = s iz e ( D l) ; [mDGr n D G r]= s iz e (D r):
I_ G ls q = s q rtm (s q rtm (in v (e y e (m D G l)+ G l* G l)) ) ;

I_ G rs q = s q rtm (sq rtm (in v (e y e (m D G r)+ G r* G r)) ) ;
D L = I_G lsq*D l; D R = in v (D r)* I_ G rsq ; Gamma=j*I_Glsq*Gm*I_Grsq;
'/.'/.X p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e c h e c k
Y. b e t a = l . 05*mu_u;
Y. L M Il= [b eta* ey e(n D G r) C(DL*K*OR)-beta*Gamma ;
'/. zeros(mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) ] ;
C(DL*H*DR)-beta*Gamma ;
Y. z e r o s (mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) ] 1 b e ta * e y e (nDGr) ] ;
Y. i f m i n ( r e a l ( e i g ( L H I l ) ) ) < 0 , d i s p ( ’Q+YTZ+(YTZ)-* i s HOT p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ’ ) ; en d ;
7.
Y. Q =Cbeta*eye(nD G r) [(DL*Ho*DR)-beta*Gamma ;
*/. zeros(mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) ] ;
'/. C(DL*Ho*DR)-beta*Gamma ;
7. z e r o s (mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) 3* b eta * ey e (n D G r) ];
y. y: l
Q o=[zeros(m D G r) [DL*Ho*DR ;
zeros(mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) ] ;
C(DL*Ho*DR) ;
zeros(m DG r-m D Gl.nDG r) ] ' z e ro s(n D G r) ];
Ql=Ceye(mDGr) [—
Camma ;
zeros(mDGr-mDGl.nDGr) ] ;
[-Gamma ;
zero3(m DGr-m DGl.nDGr) ] ’ eye(nD G r) ] ;
Y=[DL*M1
zeros(mDGl+2*(mDGr-mDGl) ,n K l) ] ;
Y p e rp = n u ll(Y ’ ) ’ ;
F y = in v (sq rtm (Y p e rp * Q l* Y p e rp ’ ) ) ; FYQYF=Fy*Yperp*Qo*Yperp’ *Fy;
Z =[zeros(m K 2,nD G r) M2*DR ] ;

Z T p e rp = n u ll( Z) ’ ;
F z = in v (s q rtm (Z T p e rp » Q l« Z T p e rp ’ ) ) ; FZQZF=Fz«ZTperp*(Jo*ZTperp' *F z;
'1X7. p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e c h e c k
7. i f m in ( re a l(e ig (Y p e rp * Q * Y p e rp ’ ) ) ) < 0 , d i s p f ’YQY"* i s SOT p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ’ ) ; e n d ;
7. i f m in (re a l(e ig (Z T p e rp * Q * Z T p e rp ’ ) ) ) < 0 . d i s p ( ’ ZQZ~* i s HOT p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ’ ) ; e n d ;
7X7.
b e ta _ m in = m a x ([m a x (re a l(e ig (-F Y Q Y F ))) m a x ( r e a l ( e i g ( - F Z Q Z F ) ) ) ] ) ;

b e ta = b e ta _ m in + 0 . 1* C niu_u-heta_m in) ;
Q =Q o+beta»Q l;
R = e y e ( s iz e ( Y’ «Y )) ;
i f m in (re a l(e ig (Y * R * Y ’+ Q )))> 0 , Rmax=R;
w h ile m in ( re a l( e ig (Y * R * Y ’+ Q )))> 0 , R=.1«R; e n d ;
Rmin=R;
e l s e Rmin=R;
w h ile rain ( r e a l (eig(Y «R *Y ’+Q)) )< 0 , R=10*R; e n d ;
Rmar=R;
end;
v h i l e a b s(R m ax-R m in)> 0.01*R ,
R =Rm in+(Rm ax-Rm in)/2;
i f m in ( re a l( e ig (Y * R * Y ’ + Q )))> 0 , Ebnar=R;
e l s e Rm in-R;
end;
end;
R=1. l«R m ar;
P si= in v (Y * R * Y ’+ Q );
7X7L p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e c h e c k
% i f m i n ( r e a l ( e i g ( P s i ) ) )< 0 , d i s p ( ’P s i* « i s HOT p o s i t i v e d e f i n i t e ’ ) ; e n d ;
7.7X
Tnew=R*Y’ * P s i« Z ‘ « in v (Z » P s i« Z ’ ) ; T=Tnew;
d i s p ( s p r i n t f ( ’ gamnia=%f. TZd => mu=Zf, b e ta = Z f . beta_min=>Xf => TY.d ’ , . . .

gamma, t r y s , n u_u, b e t a , b e ta _ m in , t r y s + 1 ) ) ;
end;
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
150m m
IIVI/4GEE, I n c
1653 E ast Main Street
R ochester. NY 14609 USA
Phone: 716/462-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989

Observer-Based Critical Response Estimation in Rotating Machinery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Observer-Based Critical Response Estimation in Rotating Machinery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

The original manuscript received by UMI contains pages with

This reproduction is the best copy available

the Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science

of the Requirements for the Degree

(Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering)

UMI Microform 9916374

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

This dissertation is subm itted in partial fulfillment of the

Gang Tao, Minor Representafci

5axlR. Knospe, Committee Member

Paul E. Allaire, Committee Member

Accepted for the School of Engineering and Applied Science:

sponse (displacement) of a rotor at critical points which cannot be measured directly.

machine operators in troubleshooting and in protecting the equipment from expen­

model of the transmissibilites of the rotor system. A fundamental performance bound

is established based on the single-speed set of measurements by bounding the response

to the unmeasurable component of the disturbance force. Acknowledging th at some

analysis establish feasibility of the proposed estimation. The unmeasurable response

used to demonstrate and evaluate the estimation.

To improve estimator performance, it is proposed that an on-line identification of

of magnetic bearings. The force excitation and response measurement environment

provided by the magnetic bearings permits system identification implementation in

and reviewed in anticipation of future research and actual implementation. An exten­

permits model extrapolation to the critical locations where no experimental data is

mittee. In particular I must acknowledge the input of my dissertation advisor, Eric

practical implementation of structured singular value theory. This theory provided

an im portant building block to the dissertation. It is probably not possible to make

A cknow ledgm ents iii

L ist o f Tables viii

C hapter 1 In trod uction 1

1.1 Problem Definition and M o tiv a tio n ......................................................... 1

1.2 B e a rin g s.......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Work S c o p e ................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Reference Rotor Models ............................................................................. 8

C hapter 3 N om in al E stim ator F orm ulation 15

3.1 F o rm u la tio n ................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Decomposition ............................................................................................. 18

3.3 Critical Response Estim ation ................................................................... 20

3.5 Maximum Estimation E r r o r ........................................................................ 27

3.6 Sensor Surface R u n o u t ................................................................................. 35

C hapter 4 U ncertainty E valuation 37

4.1 Uncertainty Representation ........................................................................ 37

4.2 Modal Parameter U n c e rta in ty .................................................................... 41

4.3 LFT F o rm u latio n ........................................................................................... 44

4.4 Structured Singular Value { f j .) .................................................................... 51

4.5 Structured Robust P e rfo rm a n ce ................................................................. 54

4.6 Robust Estimation Error B o u n d ................................................................. 55

4.6.1 Problem F orm u latio n ...................................................................... 55

4.6.2 One Case of I n t e r e s t ...................................................................... 60

C hapter 5 C onstructing a B etter E stim ator 63

5.1 Estimator Reconstruction and / z ................................................................. 63

5.1.1 Constructing a Robust Estimator using f x ................................... 64

5.1.2 Searching for the Global M in im u m ............................................. 68

5.2 Making Use of Speed V a ria tio n s................................................................. 72

5.2.1 A Single (Occasional) Speed Dip ................................................ 72

5.2.2 Model U n c e rta in ty .......................................................................... 74

C hapter 6 R otor Identification 77

6.2 Experimental Modal A n a ly s is .................................................................... 79

6.2.1 Frequency Domain M e th o d s .......................................................... 80

machine operators in troubleshooting and in protecting the equipment from expen

and reviewed in anticipation of future research and actual implementation. An exten