2076

Dynamics of a hydropower generator subjected to

unbalanced magnetic pull
Y Calleecharan* and J-O Aidanpää
Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics, Division of Solid Mechanics, Luleå, Tekniska Universitet,
Luleå, Sweden

The manuscript was received on 6 September 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 23 February 2011.

DOI: 10.1177/0954406211403844

Abstract: Eccentricity leading to unbalanced magnetic pull (UMP) in electrical machines is a

significant concern in industry. The UMP is known to be composed of two components: a radial
component and a tangential one. Models that are used in industry tend to include the radial com-
ponent alone. In this article, a Jeffcott rotor model together with a new UMP model that incorpo-
rates both radial and tangential UMP constituents is studied for an industrial hydropower
generator. Characterizing the UMP as springs permits the model to inherit UMP stiffness contri-
bution. Interesting dynamics are observed with the new model for a wide range of external forcing
frequencies. It is shown firstly that the new UMP model is sensitive to forcing frequency in the rotor
movements. Secondly, it is found that this sensitivity to forcing frequency increases with decreasing
rotor system stiffness. Moreover, quasi-periodic motion in the rotor displacements is observed and
it is noted that the rotor does not need to be forced by frequencies above its critical speed for this less
desirable motion to occur. Thus, it becomes interesting to be able to account for the UMP stiffness
contribution in order to curb machine malfunction which might result from these UMP forces.

Keywords: eccentricity, whirling, UMP, radial, tangential, rotor, bifurcation, quasi-periodic motion

1 INTRODUCTION In literature, analysis has been mainly limited to

Rotor–stator eccentricity in electrical machines is an
issue that have caught attention for a long time [1, 2]
and is an important item in condition monitoring [3].
This undesirable condition arises due to either
mechanical or electrical faults or due to a combina-
tion of both types of faults. Rotor–stator eccentricity
can be classified into static eccentricity, dynamic
eccentricity, and mixed eccentricity. Mixed eccentric-
ity is hard to analyse due to a multitude of factors that
can lead to this type of eccentricity and in practice,
dynamic eccentricity implicitly implies the existence
of both types of eccentricities [4].
*Correspondence author: Department of Engineering Sciences and
Mathematics, Division of Solid Mechanics, Luleå, Tekniska
Universitet, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden.
email: yogcal@ltu.se
static eccentricity as it is more amenable to theoret-
ical conceptualizations. Static eccentricity may be
caused for example in turbine generators due to mis-
alignment of the rotor shaft with respect to the sup-
porting bearings. Some authors [5, 6] have considered
mixed eccentricity conditions whereas others [7, 8]
have given attention to each of static eccentricity
phenomenon and of dynamic eccentricity phenome-
non separately in electrical machines.
Mechanical vibrations due to rotor–stator eccen-
tricity can lead to various types of operating malfunc-
tions such as bearing failures which can precede
rotor–stator rub. It is known that the unbalanced
magnetic pull (UMP) has the adverse effect to
increase the rotor–stator eccentricity [9]. Now, the
UMP forces the rotor centre to move further away
from the stator bore centre, thereby augmenting the
possibility of operating malfunctions as stated earlier.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

 Dynamics of a hydropower generator
Earlier analysis considered only a radial UMP [10]
whereas more recent works [11, 12] depict the UMP
as consisting of two components: a radial one and a
tangential component. The radial UMP constituent
arises due to an unbalance in magnetic flux on oppo-
site sides of the rotor brought about by the rotor–
stator eccentricity. The tangential UMP part on the
other hand originates from the presence of damper
windings or amortisseur windings that normally
equip synchronous machines. More information
about the importance of damper windings can be
found, for example, in reference [13]. Unlike static
eccentricity which acts in a single direction, approx-
imately in the direction of the shortest air-gap length
[14] that is fixed in space, dynamic eccentricity pro-
duces a rotating UMP [4] with the shortest air-gap
length not fixed in space.
In hydropower generators where the clearance
between the rotor and the stator is of low order of
magnitude as compared to the diameter of the rotor,
rotor–stator eccentricity leading to vibration problems
becomes a crucial aspect in both design and operation
in order to prevent outage. The length of an air-gap is a
design compromise between mechanical and electri-
cal parameters, and it should not be too short, other-
wise the UMP may be of very large magnitude.
Although several papers [15–19], for instance, have
studied the UMP in electrical machines from the
electrical point of view, fewer papers in the literature
[20–22], for example, have attempted to model the
UMP for mechanical dynamic analysis. It is worth-
while to note that limitations in numerical computa-
tions in the earlier years did restrict rigorous
investigations to be made. This article comes in as a
first step to fill this void. A parametric model for the
UMP was derived in reference [14] but it is unclear on
how to use the model in mechanical analysis.
The main objective of this article remains the iden-
tification and characterization of the dynamics of the
UMP constituents on the radial displacement of the
rotor centre inside the stator bore, and tools such as
bifurcation diagrams and rotor centre orbit plots are
used. In a hydroelectric plant, there are several
machineries, often close together, that operate in syn-
ergy. This gives rise to a multitude of operating and
vibrating frequencies that are picked up by the
machineries. In effect, the vibrating signature of a
particular machinery component will often be pol-
luted by other external frequencies that belong to
nearby operating machines. Also, depending on the
rate of water flow around the blades at the bottom
of the turbine, a rotor may pick up vibrations from
the blades’ movements. These external disturbances
constitute forcing frequencies that act on the rotor.
Therefore, besides being affected by eccentricity
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
2077
related forces as described in an earlier paragraph,
the rotor is seen to be affected by unwanted frequen-
cies also. In this article, the consequences of these
external forces shall be explored over a certain fre-
quency range. These outside influences will affect
the whirling of the rotor inside the stator and will
affect the magnitude of the UMP components
likewise.
Now, the rotor is a major component in a generator
system and it can have different aspect ratios, i.e. dif-
ferent length-to-diameter ratios. The stiffness prop-
erty of the rotor paves a way for simple mechanical
dynamic analysis when the UMP constituents can
also be cast into stiffness formulations. An industrial
hydropower synchronous generator will be consid-
ered here [23]. A qualitative knowledge of the varia-
tion in rotor displacements inside the stator is of
significance and relevance in industry as sudden
changes in the displacements of the rotor centre
with respect to the centre of the stator bore can
induce high amplitudes of vibration in other parts
of the generator which may in turn entail machine
malfunction and premature wear.
Present models in the hydropower industry use the
maximum radial UMP value only – more distinctly the
maximum radial stiffness that corresponds to the max-
imum radial UMP in the computations of the dynamic
response of the rotor. We shall see that this approxi-
mation is insufficient if reliable information about
the dynamics of the rotor–stator system is needed.
Simulations are included in this article which cater
for different cases of interest of the UMP components.
These UMP components determine how the rotor is
moving inside the stator. We are interested here in the
displacements of the rotor centre with respect to the
stator centre in the radial direction under the effect of
the previously mentioned external forcing frequencies.
Three important cases of interest come into play: the
first case, mentioned briefly at the beginning of this
paragraph, assumes existence of the radial UMP only
and furthermore simplifies the analysis to having a
single value of the radial UMP stiffness, namely the
maximum radial UMP stiffness, at all whirling fre-
quencies or whirling angular velocities of the rotor.
The second case considers a new UMP model, which
is the main theme of this article, and treats quantita-
tive behaviours of both UMP parts over a rotor distinc-
tive whirling frequency range. Finally, the third case
considers the same new model as in the second case
but with the tangential UMP component discarded.
These different models are investigated in this article
and have as purpose to clarify the importance of
not neglecting the actual behaviour of the UMP com-
ponents over the whirling frequency range of a rotor.
The new model portrayed in this article is applied to
2078 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää

a simple Jeffcott rotor. Simplifications accompanying (a)

this model in order to simplify analysis are firstly that inner stator bore m
k, c
the bearings’ stiffnesses have been kept constant; sec-
ondly, a combined damping value has been used for
the rotor shaft and that of the bearings; and thirdly,
mass eccentricity effect on the rotor has been omitted.
It has been deemed sensible to exclude such parame-
ters as they would clutter the analysis making the
effects of the UMP to be less easily distinguishable.
Apart that, assumptions governing the proposed new y
(b)
UMP model are that saturation effects of the iron parts
are neglected and the UMP has a linear behaviour with FtUMP
eccentricity. FrUMP

2 MODEL r
θ
2.1 Simulating the rotor–stator unit
Cro x
Cst
The model used is a symmetrical Jeffcott rotor as ωro
a
shown in Fig. 1(a) and the main parameters of the
rotor–stator system are given in Fig. 1(b). The main
difference in this model as compared to the rigidly
supported Jeffcott rotor model [24] is the inclusion
of the bearings’ stiffnesses and damping. The mass
Fig. 1 (a) The symmetrical Jeffcott rotor supported on
of the rotor is m and this rotor rests on two isotropic bearings. (b) Rotor inside the stator with the
bearings each of stiffness kb via a supporting shaft main parameters in the Cartesian coordinates
having stiffness kro. The combined damping of the system and with the directions of the forces
shaft and that of the bearings is assumed to be c, FrUMP and FtUMP defined. The size of the stator
and this will be accounted in the equations of is grossly exaggerated. The rotor and stator cen-
motions by a damping ratio  as will be seen in tres are marked, in order, by points Cro and Cst.
Gravity is ignored in the model. The angular dis-
section 2.2. The effect of gravity is neglected in the
placement is given by  and the rotor–stator
model. For the Jeffcott rotor model shown in Fig. 1(a) eccentricity is represented by the distance r
together accounting for the contributions of the UMP
components FrUMP and FtUMP as depicted in Fig. 1(b),
equations of motion can be set up in the Cartesian
coordinates system when an external force having Table 1 Numerical data of the rotor of Porjus genera-
amplitude F with forcing frequency !fo exists. This tor Unit 8. All data pertain to the rotor unless
forcing frequency, !fo, is not to be confused with mentioned otherwise
the mechanical angular velocity of the rotor, !ro, the Parameter Value
latter being fixed (Table 1) for the system in consid- Mass, m [kg] 30 000
eration. The nature of the forcing frequency, !fo, was Rotor–stator eccentricity, r [m] 1.7  103
Mean air-gap length, am [m] 17  103
keyed out in section 1 and !fo encompasses the whirl- Mechanical angular velocity, !ro [rad/s] 22.44
ing frequencies in the rotor whirling range, the fre- Young’s modulus of elasticity, E [Pa] 200  109
quency values of which are introduced in section 3.1. Area moment of inertia, I [m4] 0.0635
Length of shaft, L [m] 3.6
As a rotor can experience both positive and negative Bearing stiffness (per unit), kb [N/m] 500  106
whirl, the forcing frequency will take on both posi-
tive and negative whirling frequency values in the
whirling range. This whirling range that identifies
the span of forcing frequencies to be applied on the
system is a limitation of the usefulness of the UMP
models put forward in this article since the UMP forces in the system. Returning back to Fig. 1, if we
curves only hold for this whirling frequency range assume that any external forcing frequencies may be
(section 3.1 and Fig. 2). It is to be underlined that combined crudely into a single-frequency compo-
angular whirling of the rotor is a consequence of nent !fo and with a unique amplitude F, equations

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

 Dynamics of a hydropower generator 2079

UMP
of motion using the Cartesian x- and y- directions stiffnesses Kr,t are amenable for estimation using
become
UMP
UMP Fr,t
" # ! " # ! " # ! Kr,t ¼ ð3Þ
m 0 x€ c 0 x_ k 0 x am  10%
þ þ
0 m y€ 0 c y_ 0 k y on the assumption of the linear behaviour of the UMP
! ! curves at low eccentricities. Equation (3) thus pro-
UMP
Fx F cos !fo t vides a formula to estimate the UMP components at
 ¼ ð1Þ
FyUMP F sin !fo t rotor–stator eccentricities other than at 10 per cent.
The actual non-linear behaviour of the UMP with
where k is the system stiffness and is given by the eccentricity together with saturation effects will
combined stiffness values of the shaft and that of limit the usefulness of this linear assumption to
the isotropic bearings, and the Cartesian UMP com- low-eccentricity values and one way to ensure that
ponents are given by this linearity holds is to select external forcing fre-
quencies with appropriate amplitudes.
FxUMP ¼ FrUMP cos   FtUMP sin  Now, equation (2) can be re-written in terms of
stiffnesses as
FyUMP ¼ FrUMP sin  þ FtUMP cos  ð2Þ
FxUMP ¼ KrUMP x  KtUMP y
Now, with a low rotor–stator eccentricity ratio FyUMP ¼ KrUMP y þ KtUMP x ð4Þ
(ratio of the displacement, r, of the rotor centre
from the centre of the stator bore to the mean air- where the Cartesian coordinates x and y are the loca-
gap length, am, in the radial direction), the UMP con- tions of the centre of the eccentric rotor with respect
stituents can be approximated by linear spring to that of the stator. Altogether, equation (1) can be
models with stiffnesses KrUMP and KtUMP in the conveniently transformed into
respective directions assuming linear behaviour of " # ! " # ! " # !
m 0 x€ c 0 x_ k 0 x
the UMP curves with eccentricity ratio. We therefore þ þ
note that FrUMP ¼ KrUMP r and FtUMP ¼ KtUMP r. The 0 m y€ 0 c y_ 0 k y
simulation points on the UMP curves in Fig. 2 were " UMP # ! !
Kr KtUMP x F cos !fo t
computed using 10 per cent dynamic rotor–stator  ¼ ð5Þ
eccentricity. It is worthy to note that the UMP KtUMP KrUMP y F sin !fo t

200

150
UMP
Fr
100
Force F, kN

50

0
F tUMP
–50

–100
–2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Whirl ratio, w whr

Fig. 2 Least-squares fitted curves of FrUMP and FtUMP constituents as a function of the whirl ratio
!whr. Upper curve shows the radial UMP component FrUMP and bottom curve represents the
tangential UMP component FtUMP . The original data sets of 20 simulation points for each
curve are overlaid, in order, as transparent triangles and squares for FrUMP and FtUMP .
Synchronous whirling is identified at the point !whr ¼ 1 and this corresponds to a rotor
whirling angular velocity of !wh ¼ 22.44 rad/s (Table 1)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

2080 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää

The UMP stiffness matrix term in equation (5) 2.2 Non-dimensionalization of the
has been proposed earlier with the signs of the equations of motion
counter-diagonal elements reversed [25]. This UMP
stiffness matrix model was found to be incorrect Equation (7) is put into a non-dimensional form by
and hence was subsequently revised during 2009 choosing
(U. Lundin, 2009, personal communication). The t ¼ ½t  t ,
!fo ¼ ½!fo  !fo , r ¼ ½r r,
new model as given in equation (5) is believed to be    ð8Þ
UMP UMP UMP
right as regard to the direction of the tangential FtUMP Kr,t ¼ ½Kr,t Kr,t and F ¼ F F
component [12]. Now, equation (5) can be recast in
using the following scales
Polar coordinates form with the position of the rotor
centre being described by r for radial displacement 1 UMP

½t  ¼ , ½!fo  ¼ !n , ½r ¼ am , ½Kr,t ¼k
and  for angular displacement (positive  being in the !n
counterclockwise direction and _ is the angular whirl- and ½F  ¼ k am ð9Þ
ing velocity of the rotor), both with respect to the
together with the following relationships
centre of the stator Cst (Fig. 1(b)). Introducing x ¼ r
cos  and y ¼ r sin  in equation (5), we obtain k c
!2n ¼ and 2  !n ¼ ð10Þ
m m

mðr€ cos   2 r_ _ sin   r € sin   r _2 cos Þ giving

2
þ cðr_ cos   r _ sin Þ þ k r cos   KrUMP r cos  r 00 þ 2  r 0 þ ð1  0 r  KrUMP r ¼ F cosð!fo t  Þ

þ KtUMP r sin  ¼ F cos !fo t ð6aÞ r 00 þ 2 ðr 0 þ  r 0  KtUMP r ¼ F sinð!fo t  Þ
ð11Þ

mðr€ sin  þ 2 r_ _ cos  þ r € cos   r _2 sin Þ
þ cðr_ sin  þ r _ cos Þ þ k r sin 
 KrUMP r sin   KtUMP r cos  ¼ F sin !fo t
Equation (6) can be simplified using trigonometry. To
this end, equation (6a) can be multiplied by cos 
and equation (6b) by sin  respectively, and added
together to form equation (7a) on simplification.
Also, equation (6a) can be multiplied by  sin  and
equation (6b) by cos  respectively, and summed and
reduced to equation (7b). The reduced and rear-
ranged equations turn into
m r€ þ c r_ þ ðk  m _2 Þr  KrUMP r
¼ F cosð!fo t  Þ
m r € þ ð2 m r_ þ c rÞ_  KtUMP r ¼ F sinð!fo t  Þ
as the non-dimensional form of the equations of
motion where 0 denotes differentiation with respect
to the dimensionless time t . From equations (8) and
ð6bÞ (9), it is seen that firstly the external forcing fre-
quency, !fo, is scaled by the natural frequency, !n,
of the system in consideration. This natural fre-
quency, !n, will vary with the stiffness, k, of the
system. Secondly, the radial rotor–stator eccentricity,
r, is scaled by the mean air-gap length, am, which
ensues that a normalized displacement, r, of the
rotor centre Cro of unity magnitude in the radial
direction leads to rotor–stator bore contact. Thirdly,
the force normalization by the factor kam represents
the static force which is required to move the rotor
to the stator bore surface when no UMP exists. Next,
equation (10) shows how the damping ratio (which
ð7aÞ
takes into account the damping of both the shaft and
that of the bearings as stated in section 2.1) comes
into being in the equations of motion. The mass m in
equation (10) represents the mass of the rotor and its
ð7bÞ value is given in Table 1.

We note that all terms in equation (7) constitute

force terms and that the effect of the UMP compo-
nents at different rotor-eccentricity positions are
immediately visible by the last term on the left-
hand side of each of equations (7a) and (7b).
Furthermore, it is important to make remark that
the forcing terms on the right-hand sides of equation
(7) are only external forces as described in section 1
and that any force due to the mass unbalance of the
rotor is absent in the model.
3 COMPUTER SIMULATIONS
3.1 Modelling and computation of the
UMP components
The UMP components were numerically estimated at
full load condition with 10 per cent dynamic rotor–
stator eccentricity at the University of Uppsala [26]
using the parameters of the Porjus generator

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

 Dynamics of a hydropower generator
Unit 8 [23]. Some important numerical data pertain-
ing to this generator are given in Table 1. The UMP
components FrUMP and FtUMP were simulated at 20
points in the whirling ratio range from 2 to 3 [27],
i.e. from 44.88 to 67.32 rad/s where the whirling
ratio, !whr, is the ratio of the rotor angular whirling
velocity, !wh, to its mechanical angular velocity, !ro.
This makes an angular whirling velocity of value
!wh ¼ 22.44 rad/s (Table 1) to correspond to unity
whirling ratio (!whr ¼ 1).
The simulated UMP components were fitted [28]
using the least-squares criterion with rational func-
tions as a function of the whirling ratio !whr. The esti-
mated rational function models, which are smooth in
the prescribed whirling ratio range, are given, in
order, by equations (12a) and (12b), and the coeffi-
cients A’s and B’s are provided in the Appendix.
Figure 2 shows the fitted curves for the radial and
tangential UMP together with the simulation points.
A0r þ A1r  !whr þ A2r  !2whr
FrUMP ð!whr Þ ¼ 
B0r þ B1r  !whr þ B2r  !2whr
ð12aÞ
A0t þ A1t  !whr
FtUMP ð!whr Þ ¼ 
B0t þ B1t  !whr þ B2t  !2whr
ð12bÞ
3.2 Time integration
Equation (11) can be integrated with a time integra-
tion procedure to find the normalized radial displace-
ment r. The degree of variation in the amplitude of r
is a direct indication of the amount of movement of
the rotor centre with respect to the stator bore centre.
Varying the normalized forcing frequency !fo term in
equation (11) in the time integration procedure can
point out forcing frequencies, !fo, at which large var-
iation in amplitudes of the rotor movement may lead
to vibration problems. As pointed out in section 2.1,
the external forcing frequencies comprise the whirl-
UMP
ing frequencies for which models of Fr,t exist, i.e.
the span of !fo is equal to the range of !wh which is
from 44.88 to 67.32 rad/s (section 3.1).
Three separate cases worthy of interest are investi-
gated in this article. They are all based on equation
(11). The three cases were introduced in section 1. In
the first case, the maximum radial UMP stiffness
value is used at all whirling angular velocities and
equation (11) reduces to
2
r 00 þ 2  r 0 þ ð1  0 r  KrUMP
max
r ¼ F cosð!fo t  Þ
0
 0
00
r  þ 2 ðr þ  r  ¼ F sinð!fo t  Þ ð13Þ
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
2081
The second case is the full new model (equation
(5)) which takes into account both UMP components
and is given by equation (11) which is repeated here
for convenience.
2
r 00 þ 2  r 0 þ ð1  0 r  KrUMP r ¼ F cosð!fo t  Þ

r 00 þ 2 ðr 0 þ  r 0  KtUMP r ¼ F sinð!fo t  Þ
ð14Þ
The equations of motion in the new model of equa-
tion (14) compute both UMP parts for each whirling
ratio according to equation (12). Finally, the third
case is a subset of the second case and equation
(11) or equation (14) reduces to
2
r 00 þ 2  r 0 þ ð1  0 r  KrUMP r ¼ F cosð!fo t  Þ

r 00 þ 2 ðr 0 þ  r 0 ¼ F sinð!fo t  Þ
ð15Þ
The commonality among the three cases is that the
corresponding UMP stiffness(es) is(are) established
from Fig. 2. The computations are done using
non-dimensional variables as expressed in equations
(13) to (15).
A single-step fourth-order Runge–Kutta procedure
has been chosen as the time integration algorithm.
This popular integration routine has a global error
term of O(h4) [29]. A C90 [30] code was written to this
end and the simulations were carried out using
Microsoft Visual Cþþ 2010 Express [31] on a computer
equipped with an IntelÕ -based T7700 Core 2 Duo
Mobile Processor. All the computations were made
using long double precision which is 15 decimal signif-
icant digits in Microsoft Visual Cþþ 2010 Express.
3.3 Results
The simulation results that will follow in sections
3.3.1 and 3.3.2 comprise mainly of two parts. In
both simulation parts, it was found informative to
vary the system stiffness k in equations (13) to (15)
and observe the resulting change in the normalized
displacement r of the rotor centre Cro in the radial
direction with the forcing frequency !fo. The informa-
tion gained from such an analysis is beneficial in the
study of different rotor designs since rotors can, for
example, be stiff or slender in relation to other parts of
a hydropower machine. It is important to note that
the generator under consideration [23] is regarded as
a stiff machine. Therefore in the simulations, it was
deemed relevant and reasonable to form a subrange
of stiffness values from the nominal stiffness value of
[23]. More specifically, stiffness ratios were intro-
duced with the nominal stiffness value of [23] taken
as unity and stiffness ratios above unity were
2082 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää

excluded as such stiffer machines are less likely to
exist.
Section 3.3.1 shows the outcome of varying the
system stiffness on the maximum normalized dis-
placement r max and section 3.3.2 presents bifurcation
diagrams for the parameter r and here likewise con-
sidering variation of the system stiffness k or equiva-
lently the system stiffness ratio k. Rotor centre orbits
estimation ends section 3.3.2 for some stiffness ratio
values. The overall stiffness ratio, k, is the ratio of the
actual stiffness value used in the simulations to the
nominal system stiffness value. The nominal stiffness
ratio can be readily computed using the parameters
given in Table 1, with the shaft stiffness calculated as
a bending stiffness. Of importance is to note that the
system damping ratio, , was set to a value of 0.1 in
both the simulations of sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. This
value has been chosen in accordance with the typical
 value of 5 to 10 per cent that is normally used in the
hydropower industry. In addition, the amplitude of
the forcing frequency !fo has been sensibly chosen
so as to avoid trespassing higher eccentricity ratios,
r, where the proposed UMP model in equation (5) will
not genuinely hold (section 2.1).
3.3.1 Variation of the maximum normalized
displacement with system stiffness
Varying the overall stiffness ratio of the rotor system
can provide useful information in that a knowledge of
variation in maximum r with forcing frequency !fo
will indicate whether the rotor can be wobbling
dangerously inside the stator which can cause
rotor–stator rub in severe cases. Figure 3 lays out
the variation of the maximum normalized radial dis-
placement of r, r max , with respect to the forcing fre-
quency !fo. The normalized stiffness ratio values
chosen in these simulations were k ¼ 0:2, 0.5, 0.7,
and unity, respectively. Three cases of interest pertain
to Fig. 3. These cases were mentioned at the end of
section 1. Their respective equations of motion were
laid out in section 3.2 and some elaborations follow

(a) (b)
0.7 0.18
Max. normalised radial

Max. normalised radial

0.16
displ. rmax

0.5
displ. rmax

0.14

0.3
0.12

0.1 0.1
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

(c) 0.16 (d)

0.13
Max. normalised radial

Max. normalised radial

0.14
displ. rmax

displ. rmax

0.12

0.12
0.11

0.1 0.1
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

Fig. 3 Time integration of equations (13)–(15) using the fourth-order Runge–Kutta routine for
different stiffness ratio values k = 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, respectively. Variations in steady
state values of the maximum r values, r max , are shown over the 300-point forcing frequency
range. The mechanical angular velocity of the rotor is !ro ¼ 22.44 rad/s. The red curves
represent the first case with only consideration of the maximum KrUMP value from Fig. 2.
The black curves denote the second case in which both FrUMP and FtUMP fitted graphs of Fig. 2
in the new UMP model are accounted for. Last, the blue curves refer to the third case in
which the contribution of the tangential UMP component FtUMP is taken away from the
second case. Details for these three different cases are given in section 3.3.1. Overlapping of
the blue and black curves exists in the diagrams for some frequency regions

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

 Dynamics of a hydropower generator
here for convenience. The first case described
by equation (13) and represented by red curves in
Fig. 3 considers the maximum radial UMP stiffness
KrUMP
max
. This implies that the same maximum value of
UMP UMP FrUMP
Kr , i.e. Krmax ¼ am 0:1 ¼ 87:485 MN/m (Fig. 2) is
max
used at all angular whirling velocities of the rotor.
The second case which is described by equation (14)
is depicted by black curves in Fig. 3 and this case refers
to the new model with consideration of both UMP
components FrUMP and FtUMP (Fig. 2). Lastly, the
third case described by equation (15) and represented
by blue curves in Fig. 3 denotes the new model but
with the tangential UMP component FtUMP left out. In
other words, the third case views the radial UMP only
and this according to FrUMP as shown in Fig. 2.
With initial conditions set to 0.01 for the states r, r 0 ,
 and 0 in the respective equations of motion for the
different cases, i.e. equations (13) to (15), a non-
dimensional time step of t ¼ 0:004 was found suffi-
cient and the maximum r, r max , was computed after
steady state conditions were reached in the time inte-
gration process. The last one-tenth of the total of
2.5  106 data samples used in the simulation was
utilized in estimating r max .
Two points becomes essential to comment here.
Firstly, in each time step at a given forcing frequency
!fo, the UMP stiffnesses Kr,t UMP
are computed form the
prescribed force curves Fr,t UMP
from Fig. 2 except for
the first case where the same KrUMP is used at all whirl-
max
ing frequencies for all forcing frequencies applied.
These stiffnesses after normalization with the nomi-
nal stiffness, k, (equation (9)) are used in equations
(13) to (15) to estimate the UMP components as a
result of a change in the rotor–stator eccentricity or
more appropriately, the normalized radial displace-
ment r. This procedure demonstrates the linear rela-
tionship Fr,t UMP UMP
¼ Kr,t r which has been assumed at
the onset of the derivation of the equations of motion
in section 2.1. Secondly, the amplitude of !fo in equa-
tions (13) to (15) has been suitably chosen in the sim-
ulations to cater for the worst case scenario (Fig. 3(a)) at
low stiffness ratio values in preventing r to exceed unity
since larger displacements are observed at low k.
3.3.2 Bifurcation diagrams for the radial
displacement of the rotor centre
Bifurcation diagrams help to identify abrupt changes
in topologies of the phase portrait of a system due to
stability changes. These abrupt changes occur as one
or more parameters pass(es) through some critical
value(s) [32]. In this section, bifurcation diagrams
for the parameter r are estimated for different stiff-
ness ratio values k as in section 3.3.1. However, only
the second case is considered, i.e. where the UMP
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
2083
model includes both the radial and tangential UMP
constituents. This particular case indeed gives a more
accurate representation of the effects of the UMP and
it can be seen from Fig. 3 with reference to the black
curves that interesting dynamics in terms of multiple
discontinuities arise in the plots. Hence, the bifurca-
tion diagrams estimated in this section aim at further
investigating the dynamics of the new model with
both FrUMP and FtUMP incorporated.
The same initial conditions as mentioned in sec-
tion 3.3.1 were used here. Steady-state conditions
were taken after 800 corresponding periods of !fo.
The number of data points was 5  106. Following
this, 100 Poincaré sections were taken at appropriate
time intervals. The strobe frequency applied was
the external forcing frequency !fo. In locating the
Poincaré sections, the step size was set to
ð1=3000 th of the rotor mechanical angular velocity
period.
Figure 4 shows the bifurcation diagrams from the
simulations with k ¼ 0:2, 0.5, 0.7, and unity, respec-
tively, with 2000 frequency points in the prescribed
forcing frequency range. Horizontal gaps appear in
every plot of Fig. 4 in the vicinity of !fo ¼ 0 where
the integration algorithm was stopped so as to pre-
vent too long a computation time. Figure 5 displays
zoomed-in portions of the plots in Fig. 4. These
enlarged regions lie between the forcing frequencies
of 26 rad/s and 34 rad/s and they aid to emphasize
visually the interesting dynamics happening in the
system. More specifically, multiple solutions arise in
some frequency ranges. The combination of single
solutions and multiple solutions form together the
bifurcation diagrams that are observed in Fig. 4.
So as to gain a further understanding of the dynam-
ics involved, rotor centre orbit plots are presented in
Fig. 6 for two stiffness ratio values, namely k ¼ 0:2
and k ¼ 0:5. These plots again apply to the second
UMP
case where consideration is given to Fr,t according
to Fig. 2. Orbit plots permit visualization of the rotor
motion inside the stator and furnish a simple way to
discern periodic motions from non-periodic ones.
The orbit plots were constructed using the last
200 000 data points of the 2.5  106 total data samples
used in the simulation at the forcing frequency of
!fo ¼ 11.03 rad/s. This frequency value coincides
roughly with the midpoint value of the forcing
frequency range which is from 44.88 rad/s to 67.32
rad/s (section 3.1).
4 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A first observation from the plots contained in Figs 3
and 4 is that the forces belonging to the UMP cer-
tainly bring about modifications in the dynamics of
2084 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää

(a) (b) 0.16

0.4
0.14

Normalised radial
Normalised radial

displacement r
displacement r

0.3

0.12
0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0.08
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

(d)
(c)
0.14 0.12

Normalised radial
Normalised radial

displacement r
0.13
displacement r

0.12 0.11

0.11

0.1 0.1

0.09
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

Fig. 4 Time integration of equation (14) using the fourth-order Runge–Kutta routine for different
stiffness ratio values k ¼ 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, respectively, represented as bifurcation dia-
grams. These plots apply to the second case where both UMP components are taken into
account (section 3.3.1). Steady-state values of the rotor centre displacement, r, at Poincaré
sections are shown over the 2000-point forcing frequency range. Horizontal gaps in the
plots in the normalized radial displacement, r, values around !fo ¼ 0 are where the integra-
tion process becomes excessively long. The mechanical angular velocity of the rotor is
!ro ¼ 22.44 rad/s

the simple Jeffcott rotor model of Fig. 1(a). The
system stability is indeed affected by the UMP.
Different explored cases for the type of UMP contri-
bution as described in section 3.3.1 result in different
system response behaviours as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Now, stability of any mechanical or electrical system
about its operating point is a fundamental require-
ment. Yet, for the simple system in Fig. 1 it is noted
that small deviations in the rotor angular whirling
velocity (in the forward or in the reverse whirl
motion) can produce undesirable dynamics. The
effects due to the UMP are more pronounced for
the second case (represented by the black curves in
Fig. 3) in which both radial and tangential UMP com-
ponents exist. When both UMP parts are included,
lots of discontinuities take place around the forcing
frequency that corresponds to the mechanical angu-
lar velocity of the rotor (i.e. at synchronous whirl
!whr ¼ 1 in Fig. 2). The presence of no discontinuities
in the red curves unlike to those displayed by the blue
and black curves (Fig. 3) substantiates the importance
of not omitting the tangential UMP. The change in
signs in the tangential UMP component at !whr ¼ 1
thus plays a vital role in the stability of the system.
Figure 3(a) also shows overlapping of the blue curves
and that of the black curves. This overlapping is to be
expected as the second case is a superset of the third
case, the latter being the absence of the tangential
UMP from the second case.
Another look at Figs 3 and 4 clearly reveals that the
system does in fact need not be forced by frequencies
above the critical speed of the rotor for the UMP com-
ponents to cause strange and unexpected dynamic
behaviour. Changes in the stiffness of a mechanical
system are not uncommon, and in both Figs 3 and 4
we note that a reduced stiffness ratio has as conse-
quence a large variation in amplitudes in rotor centre
movements. Here again, the second case with both
UMP constituents in the model shows marked differ-
ences from the other cases. Discontinuities occur
over longer frequency ranges (compare the black
curves for the second case with the blue curves for
the third case in Fig. 3). As mentioned in the previous
paragraph, there is overlapping of the response

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

 Dynamics of a hydropower generator 2085

(a) (b)
0.14
0.24
Normalised radial

Normalised radial
0.22
displacement r

displacement r
0.13
0.2
0.18 0.12

0.16
0.11
0.14

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

(c) 0.13 (d)

0.12
Normalised radial

Normalised radial
0.115
displacement r

displacement r
0.12

0.11
0.11
0.105

0.1 0.1
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s Forcing frequency wfo, rad/s

Fig. 5 Zoomed-in windows of the bifurcation plots in Fig. 4 for the frequency range 26 rad/s to
34 rad/s for different stiffness ratio values k ¼ 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, respectively. These plots
apply to the second case in which both UMP components are taken into account (section
3.3.1). The amplitudes on the y-axis represent the normalized rotor centre displacement, r,
in the radial direction. The mechanical angular velocity of the rotor is !ro ¼ 22.44 rad/s

(a) (b)
0.3 0.15
Normalised rotor displacement

Normalised rotor displacement

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.05
in y direction

in y direction

0 0

–0.1 –0.05

–0.2 –0.1

–0.3 –0.15
–0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 –0.15 –0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Normalised rotor displacement Normalised rotor displacement
in x direction in x direction

Fig. 6 Rotor centre orbit plots for different stiffness ratio values of k ¼ 0.2 and 0.5, respectively.
These plots apply to the second case in which both UMP components are taken into account
(section 3.3.1). The steady state values of r were taken as the last 200 000 data points in the
integration process (section 3.3.2) and the forcing frequency at which these diagrams were
simulated was !fo ¼ 11.03 rad/s. The normalized Cartesian components are calculated as
x ¼ r cos 0 and y ¼ r sin 0

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science

2086 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää
curves (blue and black curves in Fig. 3) principally on
the continuous parts of the curves and this overlap-
ping increases with increasing stiffness ratio, thereby
demonstrating the adverse effect of the UMP at low
stiffness ratios on the system response. The current
model that is typically used in industry is shown by
the red curves in Fig. 3 and these are very smooth and
well behaved. It is observed in Fig. 3 how dropping the
contribution of the tangential UMP from the analysis
can lead to a false representation of the system
response as mentioned in the earlier paragraph. An
oddity is that this model from the first case has a
strong effect on the natural frequency of the system
at low stiffness ratios. In particular, we note in Fig.
3(a) that the resonance of the system is decreased
from an expected value of around 78 rad/s to a
value of around 57 rad/s and this is due to the maxi-
F UMP
mum radial UMP stiffness, namely KrUMP max
¼ amr0:1
max
(Fig. 2) which is used at all angular whirling velocities
of the rotor to calculate the product KrUMP
max
r in equa-
tion (13).
Turning to Fig. 6, we see that quasi-periodic motion
of the rotor is distinctly exposed. The diagrams
therein apply to the second case namely with both
UMP components accounted for. At the forcing fre-
quency value of !fo ¼ 11.03 rad/s at which the dia-
grams of Fig. 6 were created, the trajectories never
close and they fill the whole torus. Quasi-periodicity
in a mechanical system is undesirable since the paths
of the trajectories never repeat and therefore the
motion of the system may become structurally unsta-
ble [33]. Quasi-periodic motion is one route leading
to chaos [32], and the plots in Figs 4 and 5 show inter-
ruptions in the quasi-periodic motion. These regions
are known as frequency-locked states where the
incommensurate frequencies become rational in
relation to each other. For the duration of the phase
or frequency-locked states, the system becomes peri-
odic though this is hard to be observed in practice and
be identified in a power spectrum. These frequency-
locked states occur as a result of non-linearity in the
system (equation (11)) when some coupling exists
between a fixed frequency and some other variable
frequency in the system [34]. For the system in con-
sideration, the fixed frequency is the mechanical
angular velocity of the rotor, !ro, whereas the variable
frequency is the external forcing frequency on the
rotor, !fo, and frequency locking will only appear for
some frequencies at which there is strong coupling
between these two afore-mentioned frequencies. In
addition, the plots in Fig. 4(a) and (b) point out that
with a low stiffness ratio, the system is more likely to
be pulled into quasi-periodic regimes at more fre-
quencies than for a system having higher stiffness
ratio values (Figs. 4(c) and (d)).
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Pre-existing eccentricity coupled with a wide vari-
ation in the displacements of the rotor centre origi-
nating from the effect of UMP can be a central cause
for rotor–stator rub. Besides, the plots in Figs 3 and 4
do exhibit very sudden or abrupt changes in the rotor
radial displacement. Apart from the wear and tear,
these brusque movements induce the damper wind-
ings to work hard to damp these sudden and in some
cases excessive amplitudes, and in doing so we may
expect that the damper windings can heat up consid-
erably which would shorten the lifespan of such
windings. Damper windings in hydropower genera-
tors have been studied since a long time [13, 35]. It is
seen in Fig. 3 and from equation (5) that the damper
windings may not be considered as functioning as
dampers in the mechanical sense. More erratic move-
ments of the rotor are in fact observed in Fig. 3 by the
black curves which belong to the second case (section
3.3.1). It is important to make remark here that a
linear relationship between the UMP components
and the rotor–stator eccentricity r was assumed
(section 2.1). This linear relationship is only valid at
low eccentricity ratios r till around 25 per cent eccen-
tricity and yet normalized amplitudes of around
r max ¼ 0:4 are observed in Fig. 3(a) for the second
UMP case. This is not to be regarded as a flagrant
violation of this linear assumption on which the
equations of motion, i.e. equation (11), rest upon.
Nonetheless, this hypothesis of linear relationship
would definitely be invalid at too high a eccentricity
ratio.
The model that has been proposed in Fig. 1 has lent
itself to a simple analysis of a rotor–stator system sub-
jected to UMP. This model, given analytically in equa-
tion (5), is attractive in that it is formulated as a matrix
of order two involving only stiffness UMP parameters.
Three different cases of UMP influence were put for-
ward and treated in this article. With solely mechan-
ical dynamics introduced into the modelling process,
it has been shown that insights can be readily arrived
at. More specifically, it has been seen that the UMP
affects the magnitudes of the displacement of the
rotor centre Cro in the radial direction with respect
to the centre of the stator bore Cst. Assumptions and
simplifications were made on the mechanical aspects
in order for the analysis to become tangible and easily
grasped. While an enhanced analysis that would
cover electrical parameters as well would provide a
more in-detailed knowledge about the overall system
behaviour and characteristics, and information on
the interplay between mechanical and electrical
parameters as regard to both the rotor and the
stator of a hydropower generator, it is nevertheless
hoped that the new model containing both UMP
 Dynamics of a hydropower generator
constituents which has been presented herein would
be appealing in a first mechanical dynamic analysis.
FUNDING
This project was initially sponsored by Elforsk AB, a
Swedish electricity producers joint research and
development company, through the ELEKTRA elec-
tric power technology research programme.
ß Authors 2011
REFERENCES
1 Walker M. Specification and design of dynamo-
electric machinery, 1915, Longmans’ Electrical
Engineering Series (Longmans, London).
2 Rosenberg, E. Magnetic pull in electrical machines.
Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng., 1918, 37(2), 1425–1469.
3 Ozelgin, I. Analysis of magnetic flux density for
airgap eccentricity and bearing faults. Int. J. Sys.
Appl., Eng. Dev., 2008, 4(2), 162–169.
4 Dorrell, D. G., Thomson, W. T., and Roach, S.
Analysis of airgap flux, current and vibration signals
as a function of the combination of static and
dynamic airgap eccentricity in 3-phase induction
motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 1997, 33(1), 24–34.
5 Nandi, S., Bharadwaj, R. M., and Toliyat, H. A.
Performance analysis of a three-phase induction
motor under mixed eccentricity condition. IEEE
Trans. Energy Conversion, 2002, 17(2), 392–399.
6 Faiz, J. and Ebrahimi, B. M. Mixed fault diagnosis in
three-phase squirrel-cage induction motor using
analysis of air-gap magnetic field. Prog. Electromag.
Res., PIER, 2006, 64, 239–255.
7 Dorrell, D. G. The sources and characteristics of
unbalanced magnetic pull in cage induction
motors with either static or dynamic rotor eccentric-
ity, In Stockholm Power Tech, IEEE International
Symposium on Electric Power Engineering,
Stockholm, Sweden, 18–22 June 1995, Volume on
Electrical Machines and Drives pp. 229–234.
8 Joksimovic, G. M. Dynamic simulation of cage
induction machine with air gap eccentricity. IEE
Proc.—Electric Power Appli., July 2005, 152(4),
803–811.
9 Burakov, A. and Arkkio, A. Comparison of the
unbalanced magnetic pull mitigation by the parallel
paths in the stator and rotor windings. IEEE Trans.
Mag., 2007, 43(12), 4083–4088.
10 Ohishi, H., Sakabe, S., Tsumagari, K., and
Yamashita, K. Radial magnetic pull in salient pole
machines with eccentric rotors. IEEE Trans. Energy
Conversion, 1987, EC-2(3), 439–443.
11 Holopainen, T. P. Electromechanical interaction in
rotordynamics of cage induction motors. PhD Thesis,
2004 (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Finland).
12 Burakov, A. Modelling the unbalanced magnetic pull
in eccentric-rotor electrical machines with parallel
windings. PhD Thesis, 2007 (Department of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
2087
Electrical and Communications Engineering,
Laboratory of Electromechanics, Helsinki
University of Technology, Finland).
13 Kimbark, E. W. Power System Stability Volume III:
Synchronous Machines, IEEE Press Series on Power
Engineering, Piscataway, NJ, 1995 (Wiley IEEE
Press, New York).
14 Burakov, A. and Arkkio, A. Low-order parametric
force model for eccentric-rotor electrical machine
equipped with parallel stator windings and rotor
cage. IET Electr. Power Appl., 2007, 1(4), 532–542.
15 Bahri, A., Ben Chaabane, S., and Seguier, G.
Synchronous machines with high number of poles:
reduction of the resultant radial magnetic attraction
by suitable connection of the stator windings.
In International Conference on Electrical Machines,
Lausanne, Switzerland. 1984, pp. 691–694.
16 Belmans, R., Vandenput, A., and Geysen, W.
Calculation of the flux density and the unbalanced
pull in two pole induction machines. Electr. Eng.
(Archiv fur Elektrotechnik), May 1987, 70(3),
151–161.
17 Smith, A. C. and Dorrell, D. G. Calculation and mea-
surement of unbalanced magnetic pull in cage
induction motors with eccentric rotors. part 1:
Analytical model. IEE Proc.—Electr. Power Appl.,
1996, 143(3), 193–201.
18 Stoll, R. L. Simple computational model for
calculating the unbalanced magnetic pull on a
two-pole turbogenerator rotor due to eccentricity.
IEE Proc.—Electr. Power Appl., 1997, 144(4), 263–270.
19 Stancheva, R. and Iatcheva, I. Dynamic behaviour
investigation of electromagnetic force densities. J.
Mater. Process. Technol., April 2005, 161(1-2), 258–262.
20 Rosenberg, L. T. Abnormal vibration problems in
large turbine-driven generators and their solutions.
IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst., 1982,
PAS-101(10), 4131–4135.
21 Guo, D., Chu, F., and Chen, D. The unbalanced mag-
netic pull and its effects on vibration in a three-phase
generator with eccentric rotor. J. Sound Vibration,
July 2002, 254(2), 297–312.
22 Werner, U. and Binder A. Rotor dynamic analysis of
asynchronous machines including the Finite-Element-
Method for engineering low vibration motors. In
International Symposium on Power Electronics,
Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, SPEEDAM
2006, Taormina, 23–26 May 2006, pp. 88–96.
23 Porjus Hydropower Centre, Porjus, Jokkmokk, Sweden.
24 Chen, J. W. and Gunter, E. J. Introduction to
dynamics of rotor-bearing systems, 2007 (Trafford
Publishing, Nictaria, BC).
25 Lundström, L., Gustavsson, R., Aidanpää, J.-O.,
Dahlbäck, N., and Leijon, M. Influence on the sta-
bility of generator rotors due to radial and tangential
magnetic pull force. IET Electric Power Applications,
2007, 1(1), 1–8.
26 Division for Electricity, The Ångström Laboratory,
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden.
27 Karlsson, M. Modelling and analysis of multiphysical
interactions in hydropower rotor systems. PhD
Thesis, Luleå Tekniska Universitet, Sweden, 2008.
2088 Y Calleecharan and J-O Aidanpää

28 DATAPLOT. National Institute of Standards and It is to be noted that the constant terms B0r and B0t
Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. occurring in the denominators of FrUMP and FtUMP ,
Department of Commerce. Version 5/02/06. respectively (equation (12)) were set to unity in the
29 Gerald, C. F. and Wheatley, P. O. Applied numerical
least-squares fit estimation.
analysis, fifth edition, 1994 (Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA).
30 ISO/IEC 9899:1990 Programming languages—C. Notation
31 Microsoft visual studio 2010, Microsoft Corporation.
a air-gap length (m)
32 Sprott, J. C. Chaos and time-series analysis,
5th edition, 2003 (Oxford University Press, c damping (N s/m)
Oxford, USA). C centre
33 Kim C.-M., Hwang D.-U. and Park, Y.-J. E Young’s modulus of elasticity (Pa)
Stabilization of quasiperiodic output in a q-switched F force (N)
Nd:YAG laser. In Proceedings of the 2nd FIR finite impulse response
International Conference on control of oscillations I area moment of inertia (m4)
and Chaos, St Petersburg, Russia, vol. 3, 2000, k stiffness (N/m)
pp. 431–434.
K unbalanced magnetic pull stiffness (N/m)
34 Carroll, T. L. and Pecora, L. M. Nonlinear dynamics
in circuits, 1996 (World Scientific Publishing L rotor length (m)
Company, New Jersey, USA). m rotor mass (kg)
35 Wagner, C. F. Damper windings for water-wheel r radial rotor–stator eccentricity (m)
generators. AIEE Trans., 1931, 50, 140–151. UMP unbalanced magnetic pull
 damping ratio
 angular displacement (rad)
APPENDIX ! angular velocity (rad/s)
Subscripts
Coefficients of the rational UMP b bearing
components fo forcing
m mean
Radial UMP component n natural frequency
r Polar radial direction
The coefficients of equation (12a) to five decimal ro rotor
places are as follows: st stator
A0r ¼ 50 592:183 59 t tangential direction
wh whirl
A1r ¼ 94 379:109 38
whr whirl ratio
A2r ¼ 49 365:472 66 x Cartesian x-direction
B0r ¼ 1 y Cartesian y-direction
B1r ¼ 1:976 09
B2r ¼ 1:013 78 ðA:1Þ

Tangential UMP component

The coefficients of equation (12b) to five decimal

places are given next:
A0t ¼ 18 651:650 39
A1t ¼ 18 670:914 06
B0t ¼ 1
B1t ¼ 1:937 78
B2t ¼ 0:971 65 ðA:2Þ

Proc. IMechE Vol. 225 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science