Reconciliation of Rotordynamic

E. H. Maslen
e-mail: ehm7s@virginia.edu Models With Experimental Data
J. A. Vázquez A computationally efficient strategy is presented for adjusting analytic rotordynamic mod-
e-mail: jose@virginia.edu
els to make them consistent with experimental data. The approach permits use of conven-
tional rotordynamic models derived using finite element methods in conjunction with
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
conventional plant identification models derived from impact or sine sweep testing in a
Engineering,
transfer function or influence coefficient format. The underlying assumption is that the
University of Virginia,
predominant uncertainties in engineered models occur at discrete points as effects like
Charlottesville, VA 22903
shrink fits, seal coefficients or foundation interactions. Further, it is assumed that these

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022

C. K. Sortore
Synchrony, Inc.,
7777 Bent Mountain Road,
Roanoke, VA 24018
e-mail: Chris.Sorte@Synchrony.com
unmodeled or poorly modeled effects are essentially linear (at least within the testing and
expected operating domains). Matching is accomplished by deriving a dynamic model for
these uncertain effects such that the resulting composite model has a transfer function
which matches that obtained experimentally. The derived augmentations are computation-
ally compatible with the original rotor model and valid for stability or forced response
predictions. Further, computation of this augmentation is accomplished using well devel-
oped and widely disseminated tools for modern control. Background theory and a com-
plete recipe for the solution are supported by a number of examples.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.1416692兴

Introduction perimental data to modify 共reconcile兲 the model at those loca-

Rotating machine analyses are based on engineering models.
These models are assembled from mathematical models of various
components and physical effects such as the rotor, bearings, seals,
bearing support structure, rotor couplings, aerodynamic cross-
coupling, fluid-rotor interaction, etc. The accuracy of the model of
the machine, therefore, depends on accuracy of the models of the
individual components and of the models of the physical effects
acting on the rotor. Unfortunately, not all the components and
physical effects acting on a rotor can be modeled accurately or
identified precisely. The accuracy of a model is determined by
comparing the response of the model and the response of the real
machine to the same excitation.
To improve the accuracy of the machine models, work has been
carried out on improving modeling techniques of components like
the rotor, bearing, and seals. In the case of rotors, experimental
methods have been used to improve the quality of the models by
testing the rotor, extracting the modal parameters and then modi-
fying the model of the rotor until the modal parameters of the
model match the experimental data. In the case of components
where the modeling is difficult or very expensive, techniques have
been developed to extract models from experimental data or to use
the experimental data directly in the analysis.
The process of extracting a model from experimental data is
called system identification. Modal identification is a special case
of this technique. All the current literature regarding system iden-
tification presents a means of constructing a model whose outputs
match the measured response for a known set of inputs. The
‘‘identified’’ model is typically presented as a transfer function.
This approach generally makes no reference to any a priori model
of the system.
This paper presents a method that bridges the gap between the
well-developed modeling techniques in rotating machinery and
the powerful identification techniques available. The end result is
that the engineer can use the modeling techniques for those
components and effects that are well known and then use ex-
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute 共IGTI兲 of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS for publication in the ASME JOURNAL OF
ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Munich, Germany, May
8 –11, 2000; Paper 00-GT-395. Manuscript received by IGTI, Nov. 1999; final revi-
sion received by ASME Headquarters, Feb. 2000. Associate Editor: D. Wisler.
tions where error is entering the model because of unidentified
effects or because the modeling techniques cannot provide enough
accuracy 共关1兴兲.
The literature in the fields of component modeling in rotating
machinery and system identification is very extensive. Lund 关2兴
presented a method to calculate unbalance response and stability
analysis of a rotor on flexible supports. This method is now
known as the transfer matrix method. Nelson and McVaugh 关3兴
developed a finite element formulation for rotor-bearing systems.
Vance et al. 关4兴 present the idea of using experimental modal data
in the refinement of models of the rotors of rotating machinery.
The texts by Vance 关5兴, Ehrich 关6兴, and Childs 关7兴 present some of
the most common methods to write the equations of motion of
rotor-bearing systems. The text by Ljung 关8兴 includes a review of
system identification techniques. The texts by Ewins 关9兴 and Maia
et al. 关10兴 include a review of the modal identification techniques
most commonly used.
Direct system identification in rotating machinery has been ap-
plied to the bearing support structure and casing. The dynamic
behavior of the support structure is measured in the form of fre-
quency response functions 共FRF兲 measured at the bearing loca-
tions. This information is later used to include the flexible sup-
ports effects into rotordynamic calculations. Barrett et al. 关11兴 and
Nicholas et al. 关12兴 used FRF data to produce equivalent single
mass support models. The bearing coefficients were modified to
include the effects of the supports. Redmond 关13,14兴 used fre-
quency response data of the support structure to produce single
mass support models including the effects of cross-talk between
supports. The author showed that substantial errors could arise if
the experimental data was taken with the rotor installed in the
machine and proposed a method to subtract the rotor influence
from the experimental data. Rouch et al. 关15兴 and Stephenson
et al. 关16兴 used FRF to create equivalent finite elements models of
the support structure. Vázquez and Barrett 关17兴 showed the effects
of flexible supports and casings of rotating machinery can be in-
cluded in the rotordynamic analyses with polynomial transfer
functions calculated from experimental data. Vázquez 关18兴 and
Vázquez et al. 关19,20兴 used this technique to include the support
structure of an experimental flexible rotor supported by fluid film
bearings on flexible bearing supports. The polynomial transfer
functions were extracted from FRF of the support structure mea-

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 351
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
sured at the bearing locations using an identification technique
introduced by Sanathanan and Koerner 关21兴 and later applied to
magnetic bearings by Gähler and Herzog 关22兴.
The work on the bearing support structures has shown that the
bearing support structure can be represented as transfer functions
acting at the bearings of rotating machinery. This is an important
conclusion. In the field of modern control, these transfer functions
are represented as local feedback mechanisms acting on the plant
共rotor-bearing model兲. The importance of this representation is
that there are formal mathematical tools that permit the synthesis
of transfer functions of local feedback mechanisms from experi-
mental data. Therefore, we can use the synthesis tools used in
modern controls to identify effects acting in rotor models without
having to measure these effects independently.
Parallel work in the area of modern controls includes Wolodkin
equations of motion is assumed by the modern control tools that
will be used in the reconciliation process. The transformation of
the equations of motion of a rotor-bearing system from the stan-
dard M, C, K representation into the state-space representation is
straightforward and it is presented by Maslen and Bielk 关25兴.
The state-space equations for the nominal rotor model with
the addition of some uncharacterized disturbance forces can be
expressed as
ż⫽Az⫹Bc u c ⫹Bk f k (1)
y m ⫽Cm z (2)
y k ⫽Ck z. (3)
The vector f k represents the suspected uncharacterized distur-

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022

et al. 关23兴 and Fisher et al. 关24兴. Wolodkin et al. showed that local
feedback can be used successfully for the identification of the
parameters 共elements兲 of a constant matrix. Fisher et al. 关24兴 used
local feedback for the refinement of the model obtained during the
identification of high-order lightly damped systems. The authors
obtained a transfer function from frequency response data and
then used local feedback to refine the model with time-domain
data as it became available. We use a similar idea on this work but
we start with a mathematical model developed using finite ele-
ments. Also, the corrections to the mathematical model are evalu-
ated at discrete points. In this manner, it is possible to keep the
mathematical model in physical coordinates and only modify the
parts of the model that are expected to contribute error to the
bance forces 共i.e., uncertainties兲 and B k is a model of how they
enter the model 共B k is a matrix with the location of the uncertain-
ties兲. The vector y k is the response at the disturbance locations. In
the present method, the response at these locations and the distur-
bances are related through 共presently unknown兲 feedback as
f k ⫽K共 s 兲 y k . (4)
The model reconciliation strategy is to compute a dynamic sys-
tem, K(s), which minimizes the error between the actual 共identi-
fied兲 response and the corresponding response computed by the
nominal model at the same locations. Figure 2 illustrates the con-
struction of the identification problem.
The state-space model for this system is

再 冎 冋 册再 冎 冋 册 冋 册
model.
ẑ˙ Â 0 ẑ B̂ 0
This work presents a method that will allow the automation of ⫽ ⫹ c u c⫹ f (5)
model reconciliation by making use of existing mathematical ż 0 A z Bc Bk k

再冎
models. The system is proposed as a nominal model with uncer-
tainties at known locations. The idea is to identify the transfer ẑ
e ym ⫽ 关 Ĉm ⫺Cm 兴 ⫹␧D12 f k (6)
functions of the mechanisms acting at the uncertainty locations z

such that the response of the mathematical model matches the
experimental data.
Model Reconciliation
The reconciliation method starts with a nominal engineering
model of a rotating machine and experimental data measured at
some known locations. The purpose of the method is to modify
the engineering model such that the output of the model matches
the experimental data. The assumption is that the error in the
engineering model occurs at discrete points and/or components.
These components could be aerodynamic effects, seal effects, or
interference fits between disks and journal—these are features or
conditions which may not have an accurate accounting within the
model and are usually difficult to identify precisely. These effects
are represented by a local feedback mechanism as shown in Fig.
1. The ‘‘controller’’ K(s) is the correction included in the nominal
engineering model. It can be interpreted as complex frequency-
dependent stiffness or transfer functions acting at discrete points
in the model 共these points are selected by the engineer兲.
再冎
ẑ
y k ⫽ 关 0 Ck 兴 ⫹␧D21u c (7)
z
f k ⫽K共 s 兲 y k . (8)
The constant matrices Â, B̂c , and Ĉm represent the state-space
realization of the identified rotor. This state-space realization is
calculated from the experimental FRF 共Gähler and Herzog 关22兴兲.
D12 and D21 are full-rank matrices and ␧ is a very small number.
These values do not affect the results but are needed to avoid
numerical problems.
Any suitable method for designing the feedback controller may
be used: H⬁ , H2 , etc. 共关26兴兲. The identification process is a mat-
ter of identifying parameters 共sources of model error兲, construct-
ing the error supermodel 共Fig. 2兲 and then turning the ‘‘crank’’ of
a chosen controller design algorithm. If the controller is designed
properly, the reconciled model will be matched to the measured

State-Space Model
The equations of motion of the engineering model will be writ-
ten using a state-space representation. This representation of the

Fig. 1 Reconciled model representation Fig. 2 Model identification block diagram

352 Õ Vol. 124, APRIL 2002 Transactions of the ASME

data in the sense that, when the original test signals are applied to
this modified model, its output will match the original data.
If the uncertainty locations are 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
method does not ignore 共as other currently available identification
methods do兲 but takes advantage of existing well-developed mod-
els of the rotor, bearings, seals, etc. If the particular choice of
uncertainty locations was chosen poorly 共e.g., assuming the wrong
location of a disturbance effect兲, the designed controller, K(s),
may still force a match between the response of the modeled and
measured plants. In this case, however, it is less likely that the
subsequent use of this reconciled model to construct transfer func-
tions to and from other points 共points other than that which were
used to perform the measurement兲 will be accurate.
tation is imposed to simplify the examples. The method, however,
can be used directly for coupling between the vertical and hori-
zontal direction.
Example 1. It is posited that the true rotor contains some
dynamics at the thrust bearing end of the shaft, say due to some
interaction with a coupling at the end of the shaft. In this example
a stiffness of 900,000 N/m is found in the ‘‘identified’’ model at
this location. In the nominal model, only the location of the un-
known spring is assumed to be known. This is the only assump-
tion made in the model reconciliation process. The value of ␧ in
Eqs. 共6兲 and 共7兲 is selected to be small enough such that the error
in the transfer function of the dynamic system does not change
with the value of ␧ and big enough to allow good convergence of
the H ⬁ crank. The actual value of ␧ depends on the dynamics of

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022

the rotor being analyzed. For the rotor in these examples, values
of ␧ between 10⫺9 and 10⫺10 are appropriate.
Steps in the Reconciliation Process Figures 4 – 6 show the results of this process. The maximum
singular value of each system is used for comparison. The maxi-
1 Measure FRFs of the actual rotor-bearing system.
mum singular value is a composite measure of the component
2 Identify a dynamic system from FRF 共state-space model for
transfer functions in a matrix and provides useful and direct com-
the transfer functions兲.
parison of the overall model of the system 共关27兴兲. Figure 4 shows
3 Construct a nominal engineering model 共rotor, bearing, seals,
etc.兲.
4 Identify the points of likely modeling uncertainty 共interfer-
ence fits, seal locations, aerodynamic cross-coupling, etc.兲.
5 Assemble the error supermodel 共consists of engineering
model coupled to the experimentally identified model, Fig.
2兲.
6 Turn H ⬁ crank⇒produces K(s).
K(s) is a representation of the physical effects operating at the
points of uncertainty. It will be an n⫻n matrix where n is the
number of uncertainties. The elements of this matrix are transfer
functions of order equal to the sums of the orders of the identified
plant and the mathematical model.

Examples
Consider a long, flexible three-bearing rotor supported by
magnetic bearings. The geometry of this rotor is illustrated in
Fig. 3.
The bearing layout of this rotor is intended to be representative
of a large boiler feed pump. The rotor is approximately 2.46 m
long and weights 1036 N. The expected continuous running
speed of the pump is 5200 rpm. The stiffness and damping Fig. 4 Maximum singular value comparison between nominal
coefficients for all three bearings are 8.75⫻106 N/m and 17,500 model and the identified rotor transfer functions from measur-
N s/m, respectively. able inputs „bearings… to measurable outputs „sensors…,
The initial measurement of FRF and subsequent model identi- Example 1
fication is not actually carried out here because we are using a
numerical model. Instead, for the purposes of this example, the
‘‘identified model’’ is the same as the ‘‘nominal model’’ but with
the actual values of the unknown effects included.
The model of the rotor is assembled from undamped mode
shapes. Two rigid-body mode shapes and four flexible mode
shapes are used. For the purposes of this work the model is con-
sidered planar and no gyroscopic effects are included. This limi-

Fig. 5 Comparison of the error of the nominal model and the

Fig. 3 Three-bearing rotor reconciled model, Example 1

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 353
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022
Fig. 6 Matching controller transfer function gain, Example 1 Fig. 8 Comparison of the error of the nominal model and the
reconciled model, Example 2

a noticeable difference between the identified transfer function

and nominal model transfer function at frequencies in the vicinity
of the operating speed.
Figure 5 shows the error between the identified rotor and
the nominal and reconciled rotor models. At the running speed,
the difference between the identified rotor model and the nomi-
nal model is 12.35 percent. At the same speed, the difference
between the identified rotor and the reconciled model is 0.00083
percent. The reconciliation method decreases the error by five
orders of magnitude. As shown in Fig. 6, the H ⬁ controller syn-
thesis exactly identifies the unknown spring with a stiffness of
900,000 N/m.
Example 2. As a second example, the identified rotor now
includes the effects of the coupling described in Example 1 and
the effects of a seal located at midspan. The seal has a stiffness
coefficient of 350,000 N/m and damping coefficient of 4,300 N
s/m. For the reconciliation process, the location of the coupling
effect is identified but the seal is ignored. Figure 7 shows the
comparison between maximum singular value of the identified
rotor system and the nominal model. There is a noticeable differ-
ence in the vicinity of the operating speed of the rotor. This is
expected because the model does not include the effects of the Fig. 9 Matching controller transfer function gain, Example 2
seal and the stiffness at the coupling end. Figure 8 shows the error

Fig. 7 Maximum singular value comparison between nominal

model and the identified rotor transfer functions from measur-
able inputs „bearings… to measurable outputs „sensors…, Fig. 10 Comparison of the error of the nominal model and the
Example 2 reconciled model, Example 3

354 Õ Vol. 124, APRIL 2002 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 1 Comparison between the eigenvalues of the nominal
model, identified rotor-bearing system, and the reconciled
model

Nominal Model Identified System Reconciled Model

Real Exp Frequency Real Exp Frequency Real Exp Frequency
共1/s兲 共rad/s兲 共1/s兲 共rad/s兲 共1/s兲 共rad/s兲
⫺1255.6 142.73
⫺122.24 184.13
⫺1870.8 351.84
⫺105.40 407.23 ⫺131.12 424.51 ⫺131.12 424.51
⫺284.03 479.69 ⫺302.85 497.53 ⫺302.85 497.53
⫺80.116 549.56 ⫺474.39 575.84 ⫺474.39 575.84
⫺473.07 590.60 ⫺117.07 670.79 ⫺117.08 670.79
⫺311.28 1073.1 ⫺301.82 1050.3 ⫺301.82 1050.3
⫺161.96 1808.7 ⫺173.79 1842.9 ⫺173.80 1842.9

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022

⫺55804. 2827.6
⫺1384.8 23698.
⫺220.77 102950
⫺326.41
Fig. 11 Matching controller transfer function gain, Example 3 ⫺348.87
⫺421.84
⫺1140.0
⫺1822.1
⫺2929.3
⫺40650.
⫺60953.

standard H ⬁ or H 2 cranks to compute K(s). The cross-coupling is

Fig. 12 Percentage error of matching controller transfer func-
tion gain, Example 2
of the nominal model and the error of the reconciled model. The
reconciliation process 共which is unaware of the seal兲 does not
usefully improve the overall error of the model. Figure 9 shows
the transfer function of the matched dynamic system. In this case,
the synthesis method is trying to match the effect of the coupling
and the seal with a transfer function at the coupling location. This
example shows both a limitation and strength of this method. The
limitation is that the sources of uncertainty must be known in
order for the method to improve the model. The strength is that, if
the sources of uncertainty are poorly chosen, then the resulting
poor match suggests that other sources should be included.
Example 3. As a last example, the true model includes the
effects of the coupling and the seal as introduced in Example 2.
For the reconciliation process, however, the locations of the un-
certainties 共i.e., the location of the coupling and seal兲 are both
known. Figure 10 shows the error in the maximum singular value
of the nominal model and the reconciled model. The error in this
case is also reduced for the reconciled model, showing a large
improvement. The error is now four orders of magnitude smaller
than the error of the nominal model. Figure 11 shows the transfer
function of the matching dynamic system. The transfer functions
of the coupling effects and the seal are clearly identified.
The synthesis method also produces cross-coupling between the
two uncertainty locations, although their magnitudes are much
smaller than the direct, physically significant transfer functions.
Generation of undesired cross-couplings is a drawback of using
an inherent result of the synthesis method and cannot be avoided
at present. However, forcing the synthesis of uncoupled transfer
functions is an active area of research in the controls community.
Once such methods become available, they can be used directly in
this reconciliation technique.
Figure 12 shows the percentage error between the transfer
functions of the coupling stiffness and seal effects and the trans-
fer functions calculated by the H ⬁ synthesis. The error of the
coupling stiffness is below 0.004 percent up to 130 Hz. The
maximum error in the range of interest is 0.28 percent at 811 Hz.
The error of the seal transfer function is below 0.55 percent up to
470 Hz.
Table 1 compares the eigenvalues of the nominal model, the
identified rotor-bearing system and the reconciled model. The rec-
onciliation process improves the eigenvalues of the system. The
reconciled model includes all the eigenvalues of the true rotor-
bearing system plus some eigenvalues that are artifacts of the
reconciliation process. The additional eigenvalues are all well
damped and do not significantly affect the stability analyses.
Conclusions
A method is presented to reconcile engineering models of ro-
tating machinery with experimental data. The underlying assump-
tion is that the difference between the engineering models and the
experimental data is caused by uncharacterized disturbances 共un-
certainties兲 acting at discrete points in the model. The forces
caused by the uncertainties are represented as local feedback
mechanisms. The method makes use of the existing engineering
model of the system and likely location of uncertainties where
error enters the model. Transfer functions acting at the location of
uncertainties are calculated so that the response of the reconciled
engineering model matches the experimental data.
This method has several advantages over other parameter iden-
tification schemes. One is that it effectively shrinks the number of
identification variables 共uncertainties兲 to a reasonable size and al-
lows the engineer direct control over where the model adjustments
are made. Another advantage is that the uncertainties have a direct
analogue to real, physical effects—interference fits, aerodynamic
behavior, etc. The identification of the location of the uncertainties
is a critical step. Given the current state of the art in rotordynam-
ics modeling, it is expected that the experienced rotordynamicist

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power APRIL 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 355
should be capable of sensibly identifying the likely sources of
uncharacterized disturbances acting upon the system.
An interesting benefit to this method is that it can actually pro-
duce a scaled measure of the disturbance effect. Numerical ex-
amples are presented where coupling stiffness and seal effects are
identified from frequency response data of the rotor-bearing sys-
tem. The only assumption used in the process is the location of the
uncertainties in the model. The reconciliation process reduces the
error between the engineering model and the experimental data by
four orders of magnitude. The eigenvalues 共stability analysis兲 of
the reconciled model match the eigenvalues of the actual rotor-
bearing system. The reconciliation process adds some eigenvalues
as the product of the added transfer function. However, these
added eigenvalues are all well damped.
If the locations of all uncertainties acting in the system are
not included in the reconciliation process, the method will try to
match the response of the nominal model to the experimental
data using only the identified locations of uncertainties. In the
example presented, the reconciliation process does not usefully
improve the error between the reconciled model and the experi-
mental data. This indicates that other sources of uncertainty need
to be identified.
The reconciliation process produces a measure of the distur-
bance effects acting on the engineering model plus some undes-
ired cross-coupling effects. The cross-coupling is an inherent re-
sult of the synthesis method and cannot be avoided at present.
However, forcing the synthesis of uncoupled transfer functions is
an active area of research in the controls community. Once such
methods become available, they can be used directly in this rec-
onciliation technique.
References
关1兴 Sortore, C. K., 1999, ‘‘Observer Based Critical Response Estimation in Rotat-
ing Machinery,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, Jan.
关2兴 Lund, J. W., 1974, ‘‘Stability and Damped Critical Speeds of a Flexible Rotor
in Fluid-Film Bearings,’’ J. Eng. Ind., 96, pp. 509–517.
关3兴 Nelson, H. D., and McVaugh, J. M., 1976, ‘‘The Dynamics of Rotor-Bearing
Systems Using Finite Elements,’’ J. Eng. Ind., 98, pp. 593– 600.
关4兴 Vance, J. M., Murphy, B. T., and Tripp, H. A., 1987, ‘‘Critical Speeds of
Turbomachinery: Computer Predictions vs. Experimental Measurements—Part
I: The Rotor Mass–Elastic Model,’’ ASME J. Vib., Acoust., Stress, Reliab.
Des., 109, pp. 1–7.
关5兴 Vance, J. M., 1988, Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
关6兴 Ehrich, F. F., 1992, Handbook of Rotordynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
关7兴 Childs, D., 1993, Turbomachinery Rotordynamics, John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
关8兴 Ljung, L., 1999, System Identification, Theory for the user, 2nd Ed., Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
关9兴 Ewins, D. J., 1984, Modal Testing: Theory and Practice, Research Studies
Press Ltd., Tauton, Somerset, UK.
关10兴 Maia, N. M. M., Silva, J. M. M., He, J., Lieven, N. A. J., Lin, R. M., Skingle,
G. W., To, W. M., and Urgueria, A. P. V., 1997, Theoretical and Experimental
356 Õ Vol. 124, APRIL 2002
Modal Analysis, Research Studies Press Ltd., Tauton, Somerset, UK.
关11兴 Barrett, L. E., Nicholas, J. C., and Dhar, D., 1986, ‘‘The Dynamic Analysis of
Rotor-Bearing Systems Using Experimental Bearing Support Compliance
Data,’’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Modal Analysis Conference,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, pp. 1531–1535.
关12兴 Nicholas, J. C., Whalen, J. K., and Franklin, S. D., 1986, ‘‘Improving Critical
Speed Calculations Using Flexible Bearing Support FRF Compliance Data,’’
Proceedings of the 15th Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX.
关13兴 Redmond, I., 1995, ‘‘Practical Rotordynamics Modeling Using Combined
Measured and Theoretical Data,’’ Proceedings of the 13th International Modal
Analysis Conference, Nashville, TN, Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Bethel, CT.
关14兴 Redmond, I., 1996, ‘‘Rotordynamic Modelling Utilizing Dynamic Support
Data Obtained From Field Impact Tests,’’ Proceedings of Sixth International
Conference on Vibrations in Rotating Machinery, Paper C500/055/96.
关15兴 Rouch, K. E., McMains, T. H., and Stephenson, R. W., 1989, ‘‘Modeling of
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/gasturbinespower/article-pdf/124/2/351/6839736/351_1.pdf by Zhejiang University user on 27 December 2022
Rotor-Foundation Systems Using Frequency-Response Functions in a Finite
Element Approach,’’ Proceedings of the 1989 ASME Design Technical Con-
ference 12th Biennial Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise, Mont-
real, Canada, ASME, New York, pp. 157–166.
关16兴 Stephenson, R. W., and Rouch, K. E., 1992, ‘‘Generating Matrices of the
Foundation Structure of a Rotor System From Test Data,’’ J. Sound Vib., 154,
No. 3, pp. 467– 484.
关17兴 Vázquez, J. A., and Barrett, L. E., 1999, ‘‘Transfer Function Representation of
Flexible Supports and Casings of Rotating Machinery,’’ Proceedings of the
17th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, Feb., Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT.
关18兴 Vázquez, J. A., 1999, ‘‘Using Transfer Functions to Model Flexible Supports
and Casings of Rotating Machinery,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vir-
ginia, Charlottesville, VA, Jan.
关19兴 Vázquez, J. A., Barrett, L. E., and Flack, R. D., 1999, ‘‘A Flexible Rotor on
Flexible Bearing Supports. Part I: Stability,’’ Proceedings of the 1999 Vibra-
tion Conference, Paper DETC99/VIB-8285. Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 12–15,
ASME, New York.
关20兴 Vázquez, J. A., Barrett, L. E., and Flack, R. D., 1999, ‘‘A Flexible Rotor on
Flexible Bearing Supports. Part II: Unbalance Response,’’ Proceedings of the
1999 Vibration Conference, Paper DETC99/VIB-8286. Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
12–15, ASME, New York.
关21兴 Sanathanan, C. K., and Koerner, J., 1963, ‘‘Transfer Function Synthesis as a
Ratio of Two Complex Polynomials,’’ IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 8, pp.
56 –58.
关22兴 Gähler, C., and Herzog, R., 1994, ‘‘Identification of Magnetic Bearing Sys-
tems,’’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Magnetic Bear-
ings, ETH Zurich, Aug., University Press, Swiss Federal Technical University,
Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 293–298.
关23兴 Wolodkin, G., Rangan, S., and Poolla, K., 1997, ‘‘LFT Approach to Parameter
Estimation,’’ Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Vol. 3, June
4 – 6, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 2088 –2092.
关24兴 Fisher, D., Jue, D., Packard, A., and Poolla, K., 1999, ‘‘On the Identification of
High-Order Lightly-Damped Multivariable Systems,’’ Proceedings of the 1999
American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, June 2– 4, IEEE, Piscataway,
NJ, pp. 848 – 853.
关25兴 Maslen, E. H., and Bielk, J. R., 1992, ‘‘A Stability Model for Flexible Rotors
With Magnetic Bearings,’’ ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 114, pp. 172–
175.
关26兴 Zhou, K., Doyle, J. C., and Glover, K., 1996, Robust and Optimal Control,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
关27兴 Maslen, E. H., 1991, ‘‘Magnetic Bearing Synthesis for Rotating Machinery,’’
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, Jan.
Transactions of the ASME