Research Papers

Optimal Positioning and Control of a MR-Squeeze Film Damper for Reducing Unbalanced Vibrations in a Rotor System With Multiple Masses

[+] Author and Article Information
Keun-Joo Kim

Digital Appliance Research Laboratory, LG Electronics Inc., Gasan-dong, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, 153-802, Koreakjkim99@lge.com

Chong-Won Lee

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Noise and Vibration Control (NOVIC), KAIST, Science Town, Daejeon, 305-701, Koreacwlee@kaist.ac.kr

Jeong-Hoi Koo

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056koo@muohio.edu

J. Vib. Acoust 131(4), 041006 (Jun 05, 2009) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3142887 History: Received February 11, 2008; Revised December 21, 2008; Published June 05, 2009

This paper presents a new semi-active control scheme that can reduce the unbalance responses in a flexible rotor system with multiple masses (i.e., disks) using a magnetorheological fluid based squeeze film damper (MR-SFD). The proposed control scheme is designed to effectively attenuate multiple vibration modes of the rotor system. The control algorithm begins with the determination of the optimal location of the MR squeeze film damper to maximize its control performance over several flexural critical speeds of interest. After identifying the optimal position of the damper based on the structure dynamics modification method, the singular value analysis was performed, with varying rotor speed, to determine the scheduled input current to the MR squeeze film damper at each rotational speed. Using a rotor-bearing model coupled with three disks and a MR-SFD, a series of numerical simulations was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the control algorithm. In addition to the numerical study, a test rotor system (equivalent to the numerical model) and a prototype MR squeeze film damper were constructed and tested to experimentally evaluate the performance of the prototype with the control and validate the simulation results. The numerical and test results indicate that optimal positioning of the damper alone (without implementing the control) significantly reduced the unbalance responses of the disks near the first critical speed. Activating the controller, the damper further attenuated the unbalanced vibrations of the rotor system at the second critical speed. The results show that, at this critical speed, the peak vibration magnitudes of the disks were attenuated by nearly 70%.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

A general flexible rotor-bearing system with a MR-SFD

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Configuration of the test rotor system with a magnetorheological squeeze film damper

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The first and second synchronous resonant mode shapes of the test rotor system with the MR-SFD installed at (a) xa=100 mm, (b) xa=200 mm, (c) xa=300 mm, and (d) xa=400 mm: thin lines indicate the original mode shapes without MR-SFD. (—) unmodified; (—) modified.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Three-dimensional map and (b) contour plot of performance index J

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Maximum singular value map and (b) the scheduled input current level

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of unbalance responses at each disk with and without control: (a) disk 1, (b) disk 2, and (c) disk 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

The test rotor system

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of measured and estimated unbalance responses of the original rotor system (without MR-SFD) at (a) disk 1, (b) disk 2, and (c) disk 3. (—) estimated; (◻) disk 1; (●) disk 2; (▲) disk 3 measured.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Unbalance responses of the test rotor system near the first critical speed (a) without installing MR-SFD and (b) with the MR-SFD installed (not activated). (●) disk 1; (○) disk 2; (◑) disk 3.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Logarithmic decrements with varying input current (a) first mode, δ1, and (b) second mode, δ2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of unbalance responses of the test rotor system with and without control at (a) disk 1, (b) disk 2, and (c) disk 3. (–◻––○–) uncontrolled; (–◼–●–) controlled.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In