Rotordynamic Design Optimization of A Steam Turbine Rotor Bearing System

Rotordynamic Design Optimization of a Steam Turbine Rotor Bearing System
Submitted: April 14, 2008
Udayraj Somashekar Ramzi Bazzi
In this project, the dynamic properties of a rotor-bearing system of a single stage steam turbine are studied, and the design is optimized for minimum weight and the placement of critical speeds. In the optimization for weight, the objective is to achieve a reduction in the weight of the rotor while ensuring maximum fatigue life of the shaft. In the optimal placement of critical speeds, the objective is to obtain an optimum design of the rotor and bearings so as to yield the critical speeds as far from the operating speed range of the turbine as possible. The optimum design of rotor-bearing systems employed in turbo-machinery is an iterative process involving several conflicting objectives and constraints. One attractive approach is to look upon this design process as a multi-objective optimization problem, where the design is optimized for different objectives individually, and the designs are ultimately integrated to determine the overall optimum design. As a culmination of the optimization, the individual sub-systems are integrated and optimized as a multiobjective optimization to find the overall optimum design.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is our foremost obligation to thank Jarod Kelly, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan, for taking keen interest in constantly guiding us on this project and putting us on the right track throughout the semester.
No less are we indebted to Dr. Michael Kokkolaras, Associate Research Scientist, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan, for his continual support and invaluable advice throughout the course of this project.
We also acknowledge the assistance of all those who have lent their support directly or indirectly to this project.
Students Udayraj Somashekar Ramzi Bazzi
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 Constraints on Shaft Dimensions Based on Dynamic Fatigue Failure Criteria Finite Element Model Development 1 4 9
Subsystem Design 2.1 Nomenclature
13 13
Optimization for Minimum Weight 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Problem Statement Mathematical Model Design Variables and Parameters Model Summary Monotonicity Analysis Optimization Study Discussion of Results Parametric Study
15 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24
Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Problem Statement Mathematical Model Design Variables and Parameters Model Summary Monotonicity Analysis Optimization Study Discussion of Results
27 27 31 38 39 40 41 44
System Integration 5.1 5.2 Optimization Study Results
49 49 51
References
52
Appendices
53
ME555 - Design Optimization
Winter 2008
1. Introduction Considered in this project is the rotor-bearing system of a single stage steam turbine. The design has been adapted from a previous project work on Rotordynamic Analysis of a Steam Turbine Rotor carried out by Udayraj et al. during the course of their undergraduate degree. The shaft and disc have been modeled in CATIA V5, and is shown in the following page. The rotorbearing model comprises of a bladed disc with 72 shrouded blades arrayed around its periphery, which is shrink fitted onto the shaft. The shaft comprises of 21 elements of different lengths and diameters. Torque transmission is achieved through the interference contact. The rotor assembly is mounted on two hydrodynamic oil film journal bearings that are fixed to a rigid foundation. In the design of a modern steam turbine, there are increasing requirements for high efficiency, reliability, operability and maintainability. These considerations usually lead to the use of more flexible and more complex rotor systems. The trend towards greater flexibility results in critical speeds near the operational speed, which may cause severe vibration problems. The increasing complexity of the system makes both system simulation and design much more complicated due to the large number of parameters under consideration. Among these quantities, critical speeds, unbalance response, deflection of shaft, and transmitted loads through bearings are the most important ones to be taken into account in the design process. When designing rotating machinery, the stability behavior and the resonance response can be obtained from the calculation of complex eigenvalues. Two kinds of optimization variables were widely used in the previous studies. One is the geometry of the rotors, such as shaft element lengths and diameters, disk size, and the position of the bearings and disks. The other is the system support parameters, such as the stiffness and damping of the bearings on which the rotor is mounted. However, the dimensions of the rotor system and the positions of the bearings and disks are constrained by other considerations such as the overall machine structure, the performance envelope, and structural strength criteria, besides just its dynamic performance. This makes the optimization problem and the imposition of the appropriate constraints increasingly challenging.
Winter 2008
Image 1.1 The Rotor - Shrink Fit Assembly of Shaft and Bladed Disc
Winter 2008
The system has been divided into two subsystems by discipline decomposition, i.e., the rotorbearing system is optimized for two different objectives subject to their respective constraints, and finally, the individual optimum designs are integrated and optimized simultaneously. First, the rotor is optimized for minimum weight with constraints on the fatigue life of the rotor, shaft geometry (elemental lengths and diameters), and bearing span (distance between the bearing mounts). In this case, the obvious tradeoff is between the weight and the fatigue life of the shaft. Second, optimal placement of critical speeds is done where the critical speeds are moved as far from the operating speed range of the turbine as possible, with constraints on the shaft geometry, bearing properties (stiffness and damping), bearing span, and of course, the fatigue life of the shaft. In this case, two predominant tradeoffs are observed - one, between the shaft geometry and the critical speeds, and two, between the bearing properties and the critical speeds which are harder to explain qualitatively. A more detailed explanation of these tradeoffs has been provided in the subsystem design section. However, it is well established that the dynamic characteristics of a rotor is substantially influenced both by the rotor geometry and the stiffness and damping characteristics of the bearings, with the latter having a more significant impact. The rotor-bearing system design is highly constrained by feasible regions for the damped natural frequencies which are dictated by operating speed requirements, weight of the rotor assembly which is dictated by cost and performance envelopes prescribed for the system, and the dynamic response characteristics of the rotor which are dictated by the system geometry and bearing parameters. Therefore one of the most important tasks for the designer is to determine feasible designs and select the optimum design that fulfills all these constraints.
Winter 2008
1.1. Constraints on Shaft Dimensions Based on Dynamic Fatigue Failure Criteria A rotating shaft loaded by stationary bending and torsional moments would be stressed by a completely reversed or alternating bending stresses in every rotational cycle (tension and compression), but the torsional stress would remain steady. In the case of designing a stepped shaft, it is necessary to realize that a stress analysis at a specific point on a shaft can be done using only the shaft geometry in the vicinity of that point. The number of components on the stepped shaft increases the complexity of analysis. Additionally, when the stress concentrations due to notch effects are taken into account, the calculations become very involved and time consuming when utilizing analytical methods. For each calculation, it is also difficult to read the notch sensitivity and stress concentration factors which are typically presented graphically or given in tabular form in machine design data handbooks. When the shaft is subjected to completely reversed bending and steady-state torsion, the critical bending stress is usually located at a point of stress concentration. The stress concentrations (Kt) known as stress risers, occur at the limited zone, where a geometrical discontinuity, such as a shoulder in a stepped shaft (known as a notch area) begins. The stress concentration effects are hence indispensable in the design of a stepped shaft for maximum fatigue life. Based on these considerations, the diameter of the a particular shaft element can be defined taking into consideration the fatigue stresses in terms of the mean and alternating bending moments (Mm and Ma), mean and alternating torsional moments (Tm and Ta), safety factor (n), and ultimate strength of the shaft material (Su). We note that the shaft design equations to be presented assume an infinite fatigue life design (a reliability of 100 %) of a material with an endurance limit (Se). Using the maximum energy of distortion theory incorporated with the Soderberg failure criterion, the minimum diameter of the a particular shaft element can be defined as:
32 n d S y
2 2 1/ 2 Sy Sy 3 K M + M + K st Tm + Ta sb m S e a 4 Se
1/ 3
, where
n = factor of safety, S y = yield strength of the shaft material,

S u = ultimate strength of the material, S e ' = endurance limit of the material,
1 Se = K b Kc K d K f S e ' , modified endurance limit of the material,
Winter 2008
K b , K c , and K d are the size, notch, and surface factors, respectively,

K f = 1 + q (K t 1) , stress concentration factor for fatigue considerations,
K t = geometric stress concentration factor (ratio of maximum stress in the shaft element to the
nominal stress),
a , notch sensitivity (where a is the Neubers constant and r is the fillet radius q = 1 + r
1
between the shaft sections under investigation), and finally,

K sb and K st are the shock factors in bending and torsion respectively. These are considered to
account for the shocks experienced by the shaft due to vibrations induced during critical speed traversal of the rotor. As mentioned above, during an iterative optimization procedure where the rotor dimensions, on which the notch sensitivity and stress concentration factors are dependent, are changed at every iteration, it is difficult for the subroutine to extract the requisite data that is typically presented graphically or given in tabular form in design handbooks. Hence, for the purposes of optimization, reasonable assumptions are made in the calculation of the modified endurance limit by allowing for a liberal margin on the stress concentration factor, Kf. For steels, Se = 0.504 Su .
1 Assume that S e = K b K c K d K f S e ' 1 S e ' 0 .1 S u 5
1.1.1. Steady Torsional Load For rotational motion, Newton's second law can be adapted to describe the relation between torque and angular acceleration: T = I p , where, T = total torque exerted on the body, Ip = polar mass moment of inertia, = angular acceleration. Since torque transmission is effectuated between the disc and the shaft through an interference fit, and the torque is determined by the force with which steam impinges on the blades on the disc, let us assume that a constant torque is being applied to the shaft, which causes a constant angular acceleration.
Winter 2008
As a test case, suppose that the shaft takes 60 seconds to attain a rotational speed of 10000 rpm from rest. Hence, (10000 0.10472 ) rad / sec = 17.4533 rad / s 2 = 60 sec Let 17.4533 rad/s2 be the constant angular acceleration of the rotating shaft, and let T = Ip x 17.4533 N-m be the constant torque causing this angular acceleration.
d d d d Hence, Ti = I p 17.4533 = m si i 17.4533 = ai l i i 17.4533 = i l i i 17.4533 8 8 4 8
2 2 2 2
Ti = 1.3159 10 4 d i li (i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14, with no summation on the index i)

1.1.2. Alternating Bending Load For a shaft with varying diameters (or other causes of stress concentration), the section of worst combination of moment and torque may not be obvious. Hence, the Soderberg fatigue failure criterion equation is applied to each shaft element, whose diameter is a degree of freedom, to determine the minimum diameter that the element can take for an infinite fatigue life of the shaft. Thus, expressions for bending moments are required to be derived at each such section, which are then substituted into the failure criterion equation to derive the lower bound constraints on the diameters of those sections. The bending moment at a section through a structural element may be defined as "the sum of the moments about that section of all external forces acting to one side of that section". The disc exerts a vertically downward force of Fd due to its weight, the shaft a vertical force of Fs due to its weight, and the bearings are approximated as linearized rigid supports for the purposes of this derivation, which exert two vertically upward reaction forces, Rb1 and Rb2, due to the weights of the shaft and disc which are mounted on them. For simplicity, let us assume that each bearing bears an equal radial load, i.e., Rb1 = Rb2 = Rb. This assumption is reasonable because the individual reaction forces at the bearings do not change by a considerable degree with changes in the elemental lengths and diameters of the shaft since this is a symmetric rotor. Total load on the bearings is the sum of the disc and shaft forces,
Fv = Fd + Fs = md g + m s g = Ad Ld g + m si g =
i =1
14
(Do Di )2
4
d Ld g + i l i g 4 i =1
14
14 2 2 Fv = Fd + Fs = 5.9173 104 (Do 0.068) Ld + d i li i =1
Winter 2008
Bearing reaction force,
Rb =
Fd + msi g
i =1
14
Fd + ai li g
i =1
14
Fd +
i =1
14
di li g 4
2 2 Rb = 2.9586 104 (Do 0.068) Ld + d i li i =1
14
Hence, the bending moments on the shaft elements (whose diameters are degrees of freedom for the optimization) are as follows:
M 1 = Rb (l3 + l2 + l1 ) Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 + l1 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 + l1 ) M 2 = Rb (l3 + l2 ) Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 )
M 5 = Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 ) M 6 = Fv (l7 + l6 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 ) M 9 = Fv (l8 + l9 ) + Rb (l 4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 )
M 10 = Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 ) M13 = Rb (l12 + l13 ) Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 ) M14 = Rb (l12 + l13 + l14 ) Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 )
1.1.3. Constraints on Elemental Shaft Diameters The definitions of mean and alternating bending moments (Mm and Ma) and torques (Tm and Ta) are as follows.
Mm = Tm 1 (M max + M min ) 2 1 = (Tmax + Tmin ) 2
and
Ma = Ta
1 (M max M min ) 2 1 = (Tmax Tmin ) 2
As mentioned earlier, the operation of shafts under steady loads involves a completely reversed alternating bending stress and a steady torsional mean stress. In the case of a rotating shaft, constant moment M = Mmax = Mmin and torque T = Tmax = Tmin. Therefore, 1 1 M m = [M + ( M )] = 0 M a = [M ( M )] = M 2 2 and 1 1 Tm = (T + T ) = T Ta = (T T ) = 0 2 2
Winter 2008
Hence, the Soderberg failure criterion equation reduces to,

1/ 2 2 3 32 n S y 2 di K sb S M i + 4 K st Ti S y e This is essentially the ASME shaft design equation. Assumptions and the usage of hypothetical data at certain phases, either due to the lack of availability of requisite data or due to imposed system limitations, are a common practice because simulating real world conditions in an idealized analytical environment is virtually impossible. A host of assumptions and simplifications have been made in deriving the closed form expressions for the alternating bending moment M and the steady torque T. For a more accurate design of real world systems, the finite element method is generally employed to accomplish this. 1/ 3
Let us assume a lenient factor of safety, n = 3. For structural ASTM A36 steel, Yield strength, Sy = 250 MPa = 2.5 x 108 N/m2, Ultimate strength, Su = 400 MPa = 4 x 108 N/m2, Modified endurance limit, Se = 0.1 Su = 4 x 107 N/m2, Shock factors, Ksb = Kst = 1.5 (for minor shocks). Hence,
d i 1.2223 10 7 58.5938 M i + 1.125 Ti
2 1/ 2
1/ 3
, where i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14.
These are the constraints on the elemental diameters (diametral degrees of freedom) of the shaft.
Winter 2008
1.2. Finite Element Model Development
Rotordynamic analysis and optimal design of a rotor-bearing system require a suitable simulation method to calculate critical speeds and unbalance responses. To perform the optimization, the first step is to analyze the system dynamic behavior. The preliminary and most important phase of the optimization is to determine the damped natural frequencies of the rotor-bearing system for the initial design, which will be referred back to and recalculated at every stage of the optimization process for modified designs to verify their feasibility in accordance with operating speed stipulations. Early dynamic models of the rotor-bearing system were formulated either analytically or using the transfer matrix approach. The transfer matrix method solves dynamic problems in the frequency domain, which makes itself reasonable to analyze the steady-state responses of the rotor-bearing system. Usually, the rotor bearing system is modeled as an assemblage of the discrete blades and bearings and the rotor segments with distributed mass and elasticity. To perform an accurate analysis of the complex rotor-bearing system, the complex eigenvalues and eigenvectors are calculated using general finite element procedures. A typical configuration of a simple rotor-bearing system, which consists of the components of rigid disk, flexible rotor, bearing, and foundation, is shown.
Figure 1.2.1 A Rotor-Bearing-Foundation system
Winter 2008
1.2.1. Shaft element Initially, the shaft element is considered to be straight and modeled as having eight degree of freedom elements - two translations and two rotations at each station of the element. The cross section of the element is taken to be circular and uniform. The continuous shaft mass, for constant density, is taken to be the equivalent lumped mass. The moment of inertia of each element is divided into two and applied at both ends of each element. The equation of motion, in a fixed frame, for a shaft element rotating with a constant speed is given by, (1) Here, q e is the (81) displacement vector that corresponds to the two translational and two rotational displacements at both ends of the shaft element. M e , M e are the translational and T R rotational mass matrices, G e is a gyroscopic matrix, K e is a bending matrix, and F e is the force vector acting on the shaft element. 1.2.2. Bladed Disc Element The turbine bladed disc elements are modeled as rigid disks. The rigid disk is required to be located at a finite element station. If the rotating speed is assumed to be a constant then the coordinates q d are governed by the following equation. (2) 1.2.3. Bearing Elements The nonlinear characteristics of the bearings can be linearized at the static equilibrium position under the assumption of a small vibration. The dynamic characteristics of the bearings can be represented by stiffness and damping coefficients. The forces acting on the shaft can be expressed as (3) where, C b , K b are the bearing damping and stiffness matrices, respectively. F b is the bearing force acting on the shaft.
10
Winter 2008
Figure 1.2.2 Modeling of a Fluid-Film Bearing The bearing stiffness and damping have a significant impact on the vibration characteristics of a rotor-bearing system. The addition of bearing flexibility to the rotor-bearing system computation tends to lower the natural frequencies of the system, as determined by Rouch et al. (1991). 1.2.4. System Equation and Eigenvalue Analysis Once the element equations (1), (2), and (3) are established for a typical element, these equations are repeatedly used to generate equations recursively for the other elements. Then they are assembled to find the global equation, which describes the behavior of the entire system. The assembled damped system equation of motion in the fixed frame is (4) where,
In setting up the complex eigenvalue problem for the whirl frequencies of the system governed by (4), it is convenient to write the system equation in the first-order statevector form where the matrices A, B, and the vector x are defined as (5)
11
Winter 2008
For an assumed harmonic solution x = x0 e t of (5), the associated eigenvalue problem is For nontrivial solution, the determinant of this must be zero, |I + C| = 0, where C = A 1 B and is the eigenvalue. The eigenvalues are usually complex values and conjugate roots, j = j I j, where j, j are the growth factor and the damped natural frequency of the jth mode, respectively. Using the Finite Element Method to analyze the eigenvalues of the rotor-bearing system will sometimes cause serious errors if the rotational effects are neglected. The rotational effects that influence the structural frequencies come from two major sources. One is the centrifugal forces, which are proportional to the square of the spinning speed. These centrifugal forces tend to increase the stiffness of some mechanical components on the rotating shaft. Therefore, the natural frequencies are actually found to be higher than expected. The effects due to centrifugal forces can be accounted for by incorporating the geometric stiffness matrix into the finite element model. The other rotational effects are caused by the gyroscopic forces. This force couples motion in one plane with the motion in another plane. This depends on the spinning speed as well; the greater the spinning speed, the greater the coupling effect. The finite element model formulated in this section inherently considers these effects.
12
Winter 2008
2. Subsystem Design
Subsystem 1: Optimization for Minimum Weight, by Ramzi Bazzi Subsystem 2: Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds, by Udayraj Somashekar 2.1. Nomenclature Parameter / Variable
E
Description Youngs Modulus Shear Modulus Poissons Ratio Mass Density Acceleration due to Gravity Elemental Length of Shaft Elemental Diameter of Shaft Elemental Cross Sectional Area of Shaft Total Length of Shaft Mass of Shaft Outer Diameter of Disc Inner Diameter of Disc Length of Disc Cross Sectional Area of Disc Mass of Disc Length of Bearing Bearing Span (Distance Between Bearings) Eccentricity Ratio of Bearing Principal Stiffnesses of Left Bearing Cross Coupling Stiffnesses of Left Bearing Principal Stiffnesses of Right Bearing Cross Coupling Stiffnesses of Right Bearing Principal Damping of Left Bearing
Units N/m2 N/m2 kg/m3 m/s2 m m m2 m kg m m m m2 kg m m N/m N/m N/m N/m N-s/m
G g li , i = 1 .. 14 d i , i = 1 .. 14 ai , i = 1 .. 14 Ls ms Do Di Ld Ad md Lb Bs
L L k xx , k yy L L k xy , k yx R R k xx , k yy R R k xy , k yx
c ,c
L xx
L yy
13
Winter 2008
L L c xy , c yx R R c xx , c yy
Cross Coupling Damping of Left Bearing Principal Damping of Right Bearing Cross Coupling Damping of Right Bearing Rotational Speed of the Rotor Low End of the Operating Speed Range High End of the Operating Speed Range ith Critical Speed of the Rotor ith Natural Frequency of the Rotor Separation Margins Yield Strength Ultimate Strength Endurance Limit Modified Endurance Limit Factor of Safety in Fatigue Shock Factors in Bending and Torsion Stress Concentration Factor in Fatigue Bending Moment Torque Mean and Alternating Bending Moments Mean and Alternating Torques Polar Mass Moment of Inertia Rotational Angular Velocity of the Rotor Rotational Angular Acceleration of the Rotor Total Load on the Bearings Load due to Disc Weight on the Bearings Load due to Shaft Weight on the Bearings Reaction Force at the Bearings
N-s/m N-s/m N-s/m rpm rpm rpm rpm Hz N/m2 N/m2 N/m2 N/m2 N-m N-m N-m N-m kg-m2 rad/s rad/s2 N N N N
c ,c
N N low
N high
R xy
R yx
i
fi
a1 , a2
Sy
Su Se ' Se n K sb , K st
Kf
M T Mm , Ma Tm , Ta
Ip
Fv Fd Fs Rb
14
Winter 2008
3. Optimization for Minimum Weight (by Ramzi Bazzi)
3.1. Problem Statement In the design of modern turbo-machinery, it is necessary to increase the dynamic performance of rotor-bearing systems. This necessitates the design of increasingly compact and light weight designs, which greatly increase fuel economy during their service life. Furthermore, the longevity and durability of rotor-bearing systems can be significantly increased by minimizing the weight of the rotor, thus reducing the forces transmitted to the bearings, and those transmitted through the bearings to the foundation, consequently also improving the performance and maximizing the fatigue life of the bearings. Reducing the weight of the shaft affects not only the amplitude response of the rotor at the critical speeds, and hence the stresses induced in it as a result of vibrations, but also the fatigue life of the shaft in constant rotation. As the weight is reduced, the amplitude of vibrations tends to increase which increases the stresses in the shaft, which consequently decreases its fatigue life. Hence, there is a clear tradeoff between the weight and the fatigue life of the shaft, since the weight cannot be reduced indiscriminately without regard to the reliability of the shaft in fatigue. It is always important to achieve a certain minimum fatigue life of the shaft and reduce its weight up until a point where the limitations imposed by the fatigue life considerations on the elemental diameters and lengths of the shaft are satisfied. Hence, constraints are imposed on the elemental diameters and lengths of the shaft, and the bearing span. The derivation of the constraints on shaft diameters based on dynamic fatigue failure criteria as well as the theory behind it has been presented in section 1.1.
15
Winter 2008
3.2. Mathematical Model Objective Function: The objective is to minimize the weight of the shaft. Since the shaft has 14 elements, the objective function becomes, Minimize W = ai li
i =1
14
Constraints: Constraints on Shaft Dimensions Based on Dynamic Fatigue Failure Criteria As derived earlier,
d i 1.2223 10 7 58.5938 M i + 1.125 Ti

where,
2 1/ 2
1/ 3
, where i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14,
Ti = 1.3159 10 4 d i li (i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14, with no summation on the index i),
M 1 = Rb (l3 + l2 + l1 ) Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 + l1 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 + l1 ) M 2 = Rb (l3 + l2 ) Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 + l4 + l3 + l2 ) M 5 = Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 ) M 6 = Fv (l7 + l6 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 ) M 9 = Fv (l8 + l9 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 ) M 10 = Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 ) M13 = Rb (l12 + l13 ) Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 ) M14 = Rb (l12 + l13 + l14 ) Fv (l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 ) + Rb (l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 )
14 2 2 Fv = Fd + Fs = (5.9173 10 4 )(Do 0.068) l d + d i l i , and i =1 14 2 2 Rb = (2.9586 10 4 )(Do 0.068) l d + d i li . i =1
16
Winter 2008
Constraint on Total Shaft Length A constraint on the total length of the shaft has been imposed based on operating limitations.
Ls = li
i =1
14
870 Ls 910 870 (l1 + l2 + l3 + l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 ) 910 Constraint on Bearing Span A constraint on the bearing span (distance between the two bearings) has been imposed, again based on operating limitations. The bearing span has to be greater than 450mm to facilitate mounting of the disc housing, and has to be less than 530mm to allow for an adequate shaft overhang for rotor balancing, and to accommodate other assemblies.
Bs = li
i=4
11
440 Bs 540 440 (l 4 + l5 + l 6 + l 7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 ) 540
17
Winter 2008
3.3. Design Variables and Parameters Design Variables: Shaft element diameters, d1, d2, d5, d6, d9, d10, d13, d14. Shaft element lengths, l1, l2, l5, l6, l9, l10, l13, l14. Design Parameters: Shaft element diameters d3 = d4 = 50mm, d7 = d8 = 58mm, d11 = d12 = 50mm - fixed at the indicated values since these are the stations of bearing and disc mounting, and are required to be constant for the particular configuration of bearing and the dimensions of the disc used. Disc dimensions, Di = 58mm, Do = 300mm, Ld = 90mm - fixed at the indicated values based on operating limitations. Shaft element lengths l3 = l4 = 35mm, l7 = l8 = 45mm, l11 = l12 = 35mm - fixed at the indicated values since these are the stations of bearing and disc mounting, and are required to be constant for the particular configuration of bearing and the dimensions of the disc used, and to afford more flexibility in the other elemental degrees of freedom. Bearing length, Lb = 70mm.
18
Winter 2008
3.4. Model Summary Objective function: Minimize W = ai li

i =1
14
Subject to:
{1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10
[58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M
2 1 2 2
+ 1.125 T1 + 1.125 T2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
2 5 2 6 2 9
+ 1.125 T5 + 1.125 T6 + 1.125 T9
1/ 3 2 1/ 2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
] ] ] ] ]
2 10 2 13
2 14
+ 1.125 T10 + 1.125 T13

+ 1.125 T14
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2
} d 0 } d 0 } d 0 } d 0 } d 0 ] } d 0 ] } d 0 ] } d 0
1 2
10
13
14
where M1, T1, M2, T2, M5, T5, M6, T6, M9, T9, M10, T10, M13, T13, M14, T14 are as described in the constraints section.
(l1 + l 2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14 ) 0.680 0 0.640 (l1 + l 2 + l5 + l 6 + l 9 + l10 + l13 + l14 ) 0 (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 ) 0.380 0 0.280 (l5 + l 6 + l9 + l10 ) 0
19
Winter 2008
3.5. Monotonicity Analysis The Monotonicity Table is a convenient tool to determine whether or not a model is well constrained and to identify active constraints a priori. The columns are the design variables and the rows are the objective and constraint functions, the entries in the table being the monotonicities of each function with respect to each variable. Positive (negative) sign indicates an increasing (decreasing) function, and (u) indicates an undetermined or unknown monotonicity. An empty entry indicates that the function does not depend on the respective variable or that it is non-monotonic with respect to that variable.
Variable F g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12
d1 +
d2 +
d5 +
d6 +
d9 +
d10 +
d13 +
d14 +
l1 + +
l2 +
l5 + +
l6 + + + + + + + + + +
l9 + + + + + + + + + +
l10 + + + + + + + + + + +
l13 +
l14 +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +
Table 3.1 Monotonicity Table for Weight Minimization From the monotonicity table, it can be observed that g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6, g7, and g8 are all active and bound the diameter variables d1, d2, d5, d6, d8, d10, d13, and d14 from below. It can also be inferred that g10 and g12 are active and bound the length variables l2, l5, l6, l9, l10, l13, and l14 from below. The activity of these constraints can be verified from the optimization results from Optimus that are presented in the following section. Hence, from the above observations, it can be concluded that the model is well constrained.
20
Winter 2008
3.6. Optimization Study The optimization was performed in Noesis Optimus 5.2 SP1 using the Sequential Quadratic Programming algorithm. The workflow for the optimization routine is shown below.
Figure 3.1 Optimus Workflow for Weight Minimization The original and optimum values of the elemental lengths and diameters of the shaft are shown in the table below. The original and optimum weights of the shaft, and the percentage reduction are also shown in a table.
Shaft Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Original Length (mm) 75 100 35 35 35 130 45 45 45 120 35 35 55 100
Optimum Length (mm) 155.10 97.40 35 35 37.37 105.81 45 45 30.00 106.81 35 35 43.79 63.70
Original Diameter (mm) 40 45 50 50 65 50 58 58 70 50 50 50 55 50
Optimum Diameter (mm) 22.58 22.72 50 50 37.98 37.85 58 58 41.92 38.04 50 50 22.79 22.64
Mounting
Bearing Bearing
Disc Disc
Bearing Bearing
Original Weight (Kg) 14.39
Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.54
Percentage Reduction 47.60 %
Table 3.2 Results of Weight Minimization
21
Winter 2008
The optimization results from Optimus are shown below.
Image 3.1 Optimus Results for Weight Minimization
22
Winter 2008
3.7. Discussion of Results The inferences from the monotonicity analysis are verified by the results of the optimization. Constraints g1, g2, g3, g6, g7, and g8 are found to be active which bound d1, d2, d5, d10, d13, and d14 from below, and g4 and g5 are found to be semi-active. Furthermore, constraints g10 and g12 are found to be active which bound the elemental lengths of the shaft from below. Hence, design of the rotor for maximum fatigue life has yielded a design with a significantly reduced weight. The original and optimum configurations of the rotor are shown below.
Image 3.2 Original Configuration of the Rotor
Image 3.3 Optimum Configuration of the Rotor for Minimum Weight
23
Winter 2008
3.8. Parametric Study A parametric study of the system was performed to explore the effects of changes in each parameter on the optimum while keeping the other parameters constant, and also the effects of changes in a combination of all the parameters (referred to as a configuration of the rotor in this section) on the optimum. The parametric tables are presented along with the curves indicating the variations of the optimum as functions of parameter changes within a certain range.
d3, d4 40 45 50 55 60 d11, d12 40 45 50 55 60 d7, d8, Di 38 48 58 68 78 Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.168885 7.349161 7.54212 7.77165 8.014716 Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.168885 7.349161 7.54212 7.77165 8.014716 Optimum Weight (Kg) 6.515355 6.978311 7.54212 8.23065 9.02094 l3, l4 25 30 35 40 45 l11, l12 25 30 35 40 45 l7, l8, Ld 25 35 45 55 65 Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.609909 7.576593 7.54212 7.529503 7.517134 Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.613381 7.576074 7.54212 7.528433 7.514916 Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.927695 7.696451 7.54212 7.510896 7.6916
Table 3.3 Parametric Table - Set 1
24
Winter 2008
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters d3, d4

8.2
7.62 7.6 7.58 7.56 7.54 7.52 7.5
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters l3, l4
Optimum Weight
7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Optimum Weight
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
d3, d4
l3, l4
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters d11, d12

8.2
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters l11, l12

7.62
Optimum Weight
Optimum Weight
35 40 45 50 55 60 65
8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7
7.6 7.58 7.56 7.54 7.52 7.5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
d11, d12
l11, l12
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters d7, d8, Di

10 9.5
Optimum Weight - vs - Parameters l7, l8, Ld

8
Optimum Weight
9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Optimum Weight
7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.4 20 30 40 50 60 70
d7, d8, Di
l7, l8, Ld
Graph 3.1 Optimum Weight vs Different Parameters
25
Winter 2008
Configuration 1 l3, l4 d3, d4 l11, l12 d11, d12 l7, l8, Ld d7, d8, Di Optimum Weight (Kg) Configuration 4 l3, l4 d3, d4 l11, l12 d11, d12 l7, l8, Ld d7, d8, Di Optimum Weight (Kg) 40 55 40 55 55 68 8.824083 25 40 25 40 25 38 5.227168
Configuration 2 l3, l4 d3, d4 l11, l12 d11, d12 l7, l8, Ld d7, d8, Di Optimum Weight (Kg) Configuration 5 l3, l4 d3, d4 l11, l12 d11, d12 l7, l8, Ld d7, d8, Di Optimum Weight (Kg) 45 60 45 60 65 78 11.007087 30 45 30 45 35 48 6.265812
Table 3.4 Parametric Table Set 2
Rotor Configuration - vs - Optimal Weight 12
10 Optimal Weight
4 0 1 2 3 Rotor Configuration 4 5 6
Graph 3.2 Optimum Weight vs Rotor Configuration
26
Winter 2008
4. Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds (by Udayraj Somashekar)
4.1. Problem Statement In the optimum placement of critical speeds, the objective is to position the critical speeds away from certain regions in the operating range of speeds of the rotor system. When the spin speed of the rotor coincides with one of the natural frequencies of whirl of the rotor system, the spin speed is referred to as a critical speed. The separation margin of the critical speed of a rotor-bearing system under the constraints of the dimensional variables is investigated. Usually, three major procedures have to be accomplished for an optimum design problem of this nature. The first is to set up the objective function, which is the separations of the critical speeds and the operating range of the rotor-bearing system. The second is to choose the appropriate design variables, the changes of whose values the critical speeds are most sensitive to. The last is to decide the major constraints of this problem, which may be the most challenging since these constraints are typically based on experience, analytical study of the system dynamic properties (which is performed in ANSYS and explained in the sections that follow), and possibly experimentation. The objective of this study is to find the optimum dimensions of the rotor and bearing dynamic properties such that the optimized rotor system can yield the critical speeds as far from the operating speed as possible. The diameters and lengths of the shaft elements and the stiffnesses of the bearings are the primary design variables since they play a very important role in the determination and movement of critical speeds. In practice, the diameters of the shaft elements cannot be sharply changed from the original values due to strength considerations; hence, it is a challenging problem to obtain the optimum combination of the shaft dimensions and the bearing properties such that the objective of moving the critical speeds away from the operating speed range is accomplished. It is important to note that the third mode is a flexible rotor and relatively rigid support mode, as opposed to the first two modes, which are relatively rigid rotor and flexible support modes. Hence, the dimensions of the shaft play a predominant role in effectuating the upward movement of the third mode, whereas, the bearing dynamic coefficients play a predominant role in shifting the second mode downward. Hence, the objective here is to move the damped natural frequencies in the operating range away from each other by reducing the value of the second rigid body mode frequency (second critical speed) and increasing the value of the first bending mode frequency (third critical speed), and avoiding the proximity of the 2 modal frequencies that are moved for the choice of operating speed.
27
Winter 2008
The tradeoffs, or more appropriately, the somewhat abstract relationships between the shaft geometry and the critical speeds, and those between the bearing properties and the critical speeds can be explained with a preliminary understanding of and experience in rotor dynamics, and by the following study of the modal properties of the rotor bearing system performed in ANSYS. From the analysis, it was also observed that each mode shape typically occurs twice - once as a predominantly horizontal mode, and once as a predominantly vertical mode.
Image 4.1 First Lateral Bouncing Mode The first mode, distinctively referred to as the bouncing mode, peaks near the center of the rotor. The mode shape shows the rotor displacement in-phase, with most of the strain energy in the rotor, rather than in the bearings. This yields a relatively high amplification factor as this mode is traversed because of the low damping contribution from the supports. Consequently, the first mode must be well balanced if it has to be traversed during startup and coastdown. It is difficult to shift the first mode frequency very much with bearing or support changes because of the minimal participation from the supports in the dynamic response. However, this mode is located well below the operating speed, and therefore, it is usually unnecessary to move this mode.
Image 4.2 Second Lateral Rocking Mode The second mode, distinctively referred to as the rocking mode, crosses the axis near the center of the rotor, or at the point on the shaft where the disc is mounted, and may sometimes have two bending peaks. This mode is frequently located in the operating range and may be moved by either a bearing modification or by altering the stiffness of the rotor in the regions where the strain energy is high.
28
Winter 2008
Unlike the first mode, where the energy is concentrated in the shaft, the second mode has significant support motion in the mode shape. This makes the second mode much better attenuated and more sensitive to bearing stiffness and damping changes. Because of the better modal damping, this mode could very likely be safely traversed as long as it is reasonably well balanced. Furthermore, the greater participation from the bearings and supports in the mode shape makes it possible to shift its frequency, if necessary, through bearing or support stiffness changes.
Image 4.3 Third Lateral Bending Mode The third mode is distinctively referred to as the first bending mode. The third mode is fundamentally different from the first two modes because this is the first "flexible-rotor" mode, where the bearing and support properties have less effect on the frequency or response amplitude. This is because of very high strain energy in the shaft, caused by shaft bending, that biases the energy distribution toward the shaft and away from the bearings. Like the first mode, it is difficult to shift the frequency very much with bearing or support changes because of the minimal percentage of strain energy in the bearings relative to the shaft. From the results of vibration analysis and from experience, it is observed that the rotor has the largest resonance amplitude when the speed of the rotor traverses the third critical speed. Moreover, it is usually an unstable mode with a very high amplification factor and an exponentially increasing response. Traversal of this frequency, or operating the turbine in the vicinity of this critical speed, causes severe vibrations, and possibly catastrophic failure of the rotor if this critical speed is not well damped by the bearings. Therefore, it is necessary to move this frequency as far from the operating speed range of the turbine as can be achieved with allowable changes in bearing dynamic properties and shaft dimensions. The effect of changes in bearing stiffnesses on the natural frequencies of the system has been investigated to understand the behavior of the system and to constitute meaningful constraints on the bearing stiffnesses for the optimization, and has been presented in the following.
29
Winter 2008
Critical Speed Map

1000000
100000 Mode 1 Critical Speed (rpm) Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 10000 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 1000 Mode 10
100 1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1.00E+10
1.00E+11
1.00E+12
Bearing Stiffness (N/m)
Graph 4.1 Critical Speed Map From the analysis, it was also observed that, in addition to modifying the bearing span and rotor shaft dimensions to move the critical speeds, the stiffness of the bearings has a significant impact on both the location of the natural frequencies and the shape of the modes. From the Critical Speed Map shown above, it can be inferred that the modal frequencies increase with an increase in support stiffness, and beyond a certain value characteristic to each mode, the modal frequencies remain constant. It is also observed that, as the support stiffness is increased, the amount of bending in the rotor increases, as shown below.
Mode Shapes for (a) Bearing Stiffness = 1x105 N/m, and (b) Bearing Stiffness = 1x1012 N/m
30
Winter 2008
4.2. Mathematical Model Objective Function: Suppose that the operating speed of the turbine has the range, N low N N high , and that it is desirable to achieve a rotor design where the low end of the operating speed range, Nlow, at least a1 times higher than the second critical speed, 2 , and at the high end of the speed range, a desirable design is to have the bending critical speed, 3 , at least a2 times higher than the high end of the operating speed range, Nhigh. The objective is to maximize the separation between the second critical speed and the low end of the operating speed range, and the separation between the high end of the speed range and the third critical speed. Hence, the objective function becomes, f = Max {( N low 2 ) + ( 3 N high )} A common way to identify the critical speeds of a rotor is the Campbell Diagram, which is a key plot in the dynamic design process of rotating machinery. It is a plot of Frequency - vs. Rotational Speed, and is essential in estimating the critical speeds that could be encountered during operation. The diagram features crossings of frequency lines of the running speed harmonic (and typically other ambient sources of excitation as well such as the nozzle passing frequencies, vane passing frequencies, engine order excitations, etc.) with the natural frequencies of the rotor. At these crossings, the risk of resonant excitation of the structure exists. The critical speeds of the rotor can be estimated by extrapolating the points of intersections of the running speed harmonic line with the natural frequency lines onto the rotational speed axis. The Campbell Diagram for the present rotor design is shown on the following page. It can be observed that the second critical speed occurs at approximately 13,850 rpm, and the third critical speed at approximately 15,250 rpm. According to the operating specifications of the turbine, the low end of the operating speed range, Nlow, is 12,000 rpm, and the high end of the operating speed range, Nhigh, is 18,000 rpm. Hence, there is clearly a risk of running the turbine at a dangerous proximity to the second or third critical speed, or worse, of consecutively traversing both of these critical speeds due to fluctuations in torque. In order for the turbine to operate safely within the specified operating speed range, it is important that the second critical speed be moved below the low end of the operating speed range, and the third critical speed be moved above the high end of the operating speed range.
31
Winter 2008
Campbell Diagram
400
350
300
250 Frequency (Hz) Mode 1 Mode 2 200 Mode 3 Mode 4 150 Running Speed Harmonic Mode 5
100
50
0 2000
6000
10000
14000 Rotational Speed (rpm)
18000
22000
26000
Graph 4.2 Campbell Diagram for the Present Design Constraints: It may not always be possible to achieve a very wide separation between the critical speeds and the limits of the operating range due to complex dynamic considerations as explained earlier, and of course, the dimensional limitations on the system, but it is nevertheless important to stipulate that a certain design is not acceptable unless a certain separation margin is achieved between the critical speeds and the limits of the operating range. Furthermore, one of the critical speeds may be easier to move with changes in shaft dimensions and bearing properties than the other due to the inherent nature of the respective modes as explained earlier. Hence, it is important to choose appropriate separation margins for the respective critical speeds such that the accomplishment of these margins during the optimization procedure and obtaining a feasible design is likely. Therefore, to make the design more practicable and the optimization more amenable, inequality constraints are imposed on the separation between the second critical speed and the low end of the operating speed range, and the separation between the high end of the speed range and the third critical speed, and are of the form shown in the following.
32
Winter 2008
Separation Margin between the upper bound on the second critical speed (second rigid body N mode) and the lower limit of the operating speed range, 2 low . a1 This constraint stipulates that the design is unacceptable if the low end of the operating speed range is not at least a1 times higher than the upper bound on the second critical speed. Since, as explained earlier, this mode is more easily shifted with changes in the bearing dynamic coefficients and shaft dimensions than the third mode, let us postulate that a separation margin of at least 10% is required between Nlow and the upper bound on 2. Low end of the operating speed range, N low = 11,000 rpm Second critical speed, 2 = ( f 2 60) rpm , where f2 = second modal frequency of the rotor in Hz
10 = 1.10 100 Therefore, the constraint becomes,
Separation Margin, a1 = 1 +
11,000 1.1( f 2 60)
Separation Margin between the lower bound on the third critical speed (first bending mode) and the upper limit of the operating speed range, 3 a 2 N high . This constraint stipulates that the design is unacceptable if the lower bound on the third critical speed is not at least a 2 times higher than the high end of the operating speed range. Since, as explained earlier, this mode is not as easily shifted with changes in either the bearing dynamic coefficients or shaft dimensions as the second mode, and also since it is a dangerous mode with a very high amplification factor which is desired to be moved as far from the operating speed as possible, let us postulate that a separation margin of not less than 10% is required between Nhigh and the lower bound on 3. High end of the operating speed range, N high = 18,000 rpm Third critical speed, 3 = ( f 3 60) rpm , where f3 = third natural frequency of the rotor in Hz
10 = 1.10 100 Therefore, the constraint becomes,
Separation margin, a2 = 1 +
( f 3 60) 1.118,000
33
Winter 2008
Separation Margin between the lower bound on the second critical speed (second rigid body N mode) and the lower limit of the operating speed range, 2 low . a3 This constraint stipulates that the design is unacceptable if the low end of the operating speed range is not at least a 3 times higher than the lower bound on the second critical speed. Separation Margin, 50 a3 = 1 + = 1.50 100 Therefore, the constraint becomes, ( f 2 60) 12,000 1.5 Separation Margin between the upper bound on the third critical speed (first bending mode) and the upper limit of the operating speed range, 3 a4 N high . This constraint stipulates that the design is unacceptable if the upper bound on the third critical speed is not at least a 2 times higher than the high end of the operating speed range. Separation margin, 30 a4 = 1 + = 1.40 100 Therefore, the constraint becomes,
( f 3 60) 1.4 18,000
34
Winter 2008
The above four constraints essentially mean that, the objective of this optimization is to move the second critical speed below the low end of the operating speed range and the third critical speed above the high end of the operating speed range such that the specified separation margins are achieved for each critical speed. The Campbell Diagram is shown below indicating the operating speed range and the allowable ranges for 2 and 3 as shaded regions on either side of the operating speed range.
The constraints stipulate that the second critical speed should lie in the range
N low N and low a1 a3
which is represented by the bluish region on the left side of the operating speed range, and the third critical speed should lie in the range a 2 N high and a 4 N high which is represented by the greenish region on the right side of the operating speed range.
Graph 4.3 Campbell Diagram for the Present Design Indicating the Operating Speed Range and the Allowable Ranges for the Second and Third Critical Speeds
35
Winter 2008
Constraints on Bearing Dynamic Coefficients From the analytical study of the dynamic properties of the rotor bearing system in ANSYS, it was observed that the natural frequencies of the rotor are more sensitive to changes in bearing stiffness coefficients than to those in bearing damping. It was found that the latter contributes primarily to the attenuation of the response amplitude of the rotor at the critical speeds, thus facilitating safe traversal of those critical speeds, and does not contribute predominantly to the location or movement of those critical speeds. Hence, the stiffness coefficients of the bearings are selected as the most important variables in this optimization study while keeping the bearing damping constant at a value characteristic to the running speed and the geometry of the rotor, and constraints are imposed on the stiffnesses based on the minimum and maximum stiffness values that the bearing can assume for the particular configuration used in this application, and also based on the range of stiffness values that the modal frequencies of the rotor are most sensitive within as observed from the Critical Speed Map. Also, only the principal stiffness and damping coefficients are considered, and the effects of cross coupling stiffness and damping are ignored for simplicity of modeling. Stiffness coefficients of left bearing,
L 2 10 6 N / m k xx 2 108 N / m
L 2 106 N / m k yy 2 108 N / m
Stiffness coefficients of right bearing,

R 2 10 6 N / m k xx 2 108 N / m
R 2 106 N / m k yy 2 108 N / m
Again, due to stipulations on the configuration of the bearing required for this application, the x-direction principal stiffness of each bearing is assumed to be equal to its y-direction principal stiffness, since these values are typically within a very close proximity of each other due to the inherent dynamic nature of oil film hydrodynamic journal bearings.
L L R R k xx = k yy = k L , k xx = k yy = k R .
Hence, the constraints on the bearing stiffnesses become, 2 10 6 N / m k L 2 108 N / m 2 10 6 N / m k R 2 108 N / m
36
Winter 2008
Constraints on Shaft Dimensions Of course, constraints are required to be imposed on the shaft dimensions based on operating limitations, assembly requirements, and most importantly, fatigue life considerations. The theory and the rationale behind each of these constraints have been explained in the earlier sections, and will be mentioned below for completeness of the model. (a) Constraints on Shaft Dimensions Based on Dynamic Fatigue Failure Criteria
d i 1.2223 10 7 58.5938 M i + 1.125 Ti

(b) Constraint on Total Shaft Length
2 1/ 2
1/ 3
, where i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14.
870 (l1 + l2 + l3 + l4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 + l12 + l13 + l14 ) 910 (c) Constraint on Bearing Span
440 (l 4 + l5 + l 6 + l 7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 ) 540
37
Winter 2008
4.3. Design Variables and Parameters Design Variables: Shaft element diameters, d1, d2, d5, d6, d9, d10, d13, d14. Shaft element lengths, l1, l2, l5, l6, l9, l10, l13, l14. Left and right bearing stiffnesses, kxxL, kyyL, kxxR, kyyR. Design Parameters: Shaft element diameters d3 = d4 = 50mm, d7 = d8 = 58mm, d11 = d12 = 50mm - fixed at the indicated values since these are the stations of bearing and disc mounting, and are required to be constant for the particular configuration of bearing and the dimensions of the disc used. Disc dimensions, Di = 58mm, Do = 300mm, Ld = 90mm - fixed at the indicated values based on operating limitations. Shaft element lengths l3 = l4 = 35mm, l7 = l8 = 45mm, l11 = l12 = 35mm - fixed at the indicated values since these are the stations of bearing and disc mounting, and are required to be constant for the particular configuration of bearing and the dimensions of the disc used, and to afford more flexibility in the other elemental degrees of freedom. Bearing length, Lb = 70mm, bearing eccentricity ratio (ratio of eccentricity at equilibrium to the radial clearance), = 0.5. Left and right bearing damping coefficients, cxxL, cyyL, cxxR, cyyR = 3 x 1010 N-s/m.
38
Winter 2008
4.4. Model Summary Objective function: f = Min {(60 f 2 12,000) (60 f 3 18,000)} Subject to:
0.006 f 2 1 0
330 1 0 f3 122.2222 1 0 f2
f3 1 0 0.0024
k L 2 108 0 2 106 k L 0 k R 2 108 0 2 106 k R 0
7
{1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10
[58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M
2 1 2 2
+ 1.125 T1 + 1.125 T2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
2 5 2 6 2 9
+ 1.125 T5 + 1.125 T6 + 1.125 T9
1/ 3 2 1/ 2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
] ] ] ] ]
2 10 2 13
2 14
+ 1.125 T10 + 1.125 T13

+ 1.125 T14
1/ 3 2 1/ 2 1/ 3 2 1/ 2
1/ 3 2 1/ 2
} d 0 } d 0 } d 0 } d 0 } d 0 ] } d 0 ] } d 0 ] } d 0
1 2
10
13
14
where M1, T1, M2, T2, M5, T5, M6, T6, M9, T9, M10, T10, M13, T13, M14, T14 are as described in the constraints section of the previous subsystem.
(l1 + l 2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14 ) 0.680 0 0.640 (l1 + l 2 + l5 + l 6 + l 9 + l10 + l13 + l14 ) 0 (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 ) 0.380 0 0.280 (l5 + l 6 + l9 + l10 ) 0
39
Winter 2008
4.5. Monotonicity Analysis
Variable F g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 g19 g20
d1
d2
d5
d6
d9
d10
d13
d14
l1
l2
l5
l6
l9
l10
l13
l14
kl (u)
kr (u)
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + +
(u) (u) (u) (u)
+ + + + + + + + + +
(u) (u) (u) (u)
+ + + + + + + + + + +
(u) (u) (u) (u)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
(u) (u) (u) (u)
+ +
Since a finite element model was used to determine the frequencies of the rotor system and the analysis was implemented in ANSYS, it was difficult to identify the monotonicities that occur in the frequency constraints g13, g14, g15, and g16. However, from the monotonicity table, it can be observed that g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6, g7, and g8 bound the diameter variables d1, d2, d5, d6, d8, d10, d13, and d14 respectively from below, and that g10 and g12 bound the length variables l1, l2, l5, l6, l9, l10, l13, and l14 respectively from below. Also, constraints g17 and g18 bound kl from above and below respectively, and g19 and g20 bound kr from above and below respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that the model is well constrained.
40
Winter 2008
4.5. Optimization Study The optimization was performed in Noesis Optimus 5.2 SP1 using the Sequential Quadratic Programming algorithm. The workflow for the optimization routine is shown below.
Figure 4.1 Optimus Workflow for Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds From the results of the optimization, the original and optimal positions of the critical speeds are represented pictorially in the Campbell Diagram, with the downward and leftward arrows indicating the downward movement of the second critical speed, and the upward and rightward arrows indicating the upward movement of the third critical speed to their optimum positions.
Graph 4.4 Campbell Diagram for the Initial and Optimum Designs
41
Winter 2008
The original and optimum values of the critical speeds are shown in the table below.
Variable Critical Speed 2 Critical Speed 3 Original Value (RPM) 13745.67 15188.37 Optimum Value (RPM) 8000.04 23759.98 Percentage Difference 41.80 % 56.44 %
The original and optimum values of the bearing variables are shown in the table below.
Variable Stiffness (N/m) Left Bearing Right Bearing Bearing Span (mm) Original Value 1.50E+07 2.50E+07 490 Optimum Value 8.94E+06 1.23E+08 517.59
The original and optimum values of the elemental lengths and diameters of the shaft are shown in the table below.
Shaft Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Original Length (mm) 75 100 35 35 35 130 45 45 45 120 35 35 55 100
Optimum Length (mm) 54.37 68.96 35 35 45.55 110.04 45 45 65.95 136.05 35 35 63.21 100.54
Original Diameter (mm) 40 45 50 50 65 50 58 58 70 50 50 50 55 50
Optimum Diameter (mm) 24.16 31.65 50 50 85.35 135.46 58 58 95.34 89.31 50 50 46.07 43.05
Mounting
Bearing Bearing
Disc Disc
Bearing Bearing
Table 4.2 Results of Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds
42
Winter 2008
43
Winter 2008
4.6. Discussion of Results First, it is important to understand that the use of the optimal design procedure requires that a suitable objective function be chosen for the particular configuration of the rotor system that is under investigation and the application that the rotor is used for. For instance, if the same rotor were to be designed as a supercritical system where the operating speed range is well above the bending mode, then it may be required to minimize the bending critical speed by moving it as far below the operating speed range as possible, instead of maximizing it. Hence, a preliminary study of the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the system and an understanding of its vibrational characteristics are indispensable in order to guide the computations to achieve the desired design objectives. As explained in Section 2.2.1, due to the inherent nature of the modes, it was hypothesized the dimensions of the shaft play a predominant role in effectuating the upward movement of the third mode, whereas, the bearing dynamic coefficients play a predominant role in shifting the second mode downward. The results of the optimization confirm these hypotheses. The original and optimum configurations of the rotor are shown below.
Image 4.4 Original Configuration of the Rotor
Image 4.5 Optimum Configuration of the Rotor
44
Winter 2008
The fact that the optimal design procedure yielded a thin section at the location of disc mounting and a thick section close to either bearing is not surprising when one looks at the bending mode shape. Clearly, in order to maximize the bending critical speed and consequently also decrease the vibration amplitude of this mode under the constraints prescribed, one should minimize the mass at the center section and at the shaft extremities where there is maximum displacement, and at the same time increase the bending stiffness of the shaft by increasing the cross sectional area close to the sections of bearing mounting.
Image 4.6 Mode 3: Bending Mode Again, the fact that the optimal design suggested an increase in the stiffness of the right bearing is consistent with the relative normalized deflection level indicated at that bearing. Similar conclusions about the decrease in the stiffness of the left bearing become obvious on examining the mode shape for the second critical speed which is required to be minimized. Hence, the optimal configuration of the rotor is consistent with these observations.
Image 4.7 Mode 2: Rocking Mode A parametric study could not be performed on this system since the optimization routine was taking several hours to converge at an optimum solution. Moreover, with a basic understanding of rotordynamics and modal analysis, valuable insights can be obtained and discernible inferences drawn about the nature of the system and the effect of changes of different parameters on the vibrational characteristics of the system by studying the results of the optimization. Hence, a formal parametric study is generally unnecessary in this case.
45
Winter 2008
The effects of certain important variables on the outputs of the optimization such as the frequencies to be moved (which constitute the objective function) and the objective function itself (and the constraints if desired) can be studied using the Model Editor in Optimus and plotting 3D Plots representing a selected output variable as a function of any two selected input variables on the X and Y axes, while the values of the other input variables are set as parameters. A Least Squares fit for a Taylor Polynomial was used to compute the surrogate model.
Graph 4.5 3D Plot of f2 vs kl and kr From the above plot of the left bearing and right bearing stiffnesses versus the second natural frequency of the rotor, and it can be observed that a decrease in the left bearing stiffness and an increase in the right bearing stiffness from their nominal values would effectuate a downward movement of the second critical speed.
46
Winter 2008
Graph 4.6 3D Plot of f3 vs kl and kr From the above plot of the left bearing and right bearing stiffnesses versus the third natural frequency of the rotor, and it can be observed that a decrease in the left bearing stiffness and an increase in the right bearing stiffness from their nominal values would effectuate an upward movement of the second critical speed.
47
Winter 2008
Graph 4.5 3D Plot of Objective Function vs kl and kr From the above plot of the left bearing and right bearing stiffnesses versus the objective function, and it can be observed that a decrease in the left bearing stiffness and an increase in the right bearing stiffness from their nominal values would minimize the objective, thus effectuating a downward movement of the second critical speed and an upward movement of the third critical speed.
48
Winter 2008
5. System Integration
Minimization of rotor weight and placing the critical speeds are conflicting objectives with significant tradeoffs. Minimizing the rotor mass tends to decrease the stiffness of the rotor and increase the natural frequencies of all rotor modes. In the optimal placement of critical speeds, moving the third critical up tends to increase the bending stiffness of the rotor, and hence increase the mass of the rotor, as was observed from the results of the optimization. Moving the second critical down seems to affect predominantly the bearing dynamic coefficients than the rotor geometry. Hence, there is a clear tradeoff between the two subsystems, which is the weight of the rotor. 5.1. Optimization Study The optimization was implemented as a multi-objective optimization in Noesis Optimus 5.2 using the Weighted Objective Method Multi-Objective Optimization Solver. The workflow for the optimization routine is shown below.
Figure 5.1 Optimus Workflow for the Multi-Objective Optimization The results of the optimization are shown in the following page. As expected, with weights of 1 and 0 respectively for the critical speed objective and the weight objective, the results obtained from the multi-objective optimization were same as those obtained from the optimal placement of critical speeds. Using weights of 0.75 and 0.25 respectively for the critical speed objective and the weight objective, which is reasonable since in traditional dynamic design of a rotor, more emphasis is usually placed on the placement of critical speeds than on the minimization of rotor weight, it is observed that a reduction of nearly 8.5 kg (which is a percentage reduction of 20.94 %) is obtained. Also, interesting but expected changes are observed in the values of the modal frequencies and the bearing stiffness values.
49
Winter 2008
Image 5.2 Optimus Results for the Multi-Objective Optimization
50
Winter 2008
5.2. Results The original and optimum values of the critical speeds are shown in the table below.
Variable Critical Speed 2 Critical Speed 3 Original Value (RPM) 13745.67 15188.37 Optimum Value (RPM) 7321.254 25110.765 Percentage Difference 46.74 % 65.33 %
The original and optimum values of the bearing variables are shown in the table below.
Variable Stiffness (N/m) Left Bearing Right Bearing Bearing Span (mm) Original Value 1.50E+07 2.50E+07 490 Optimum Value 6.74E+06 1.54E+08 517.59
The Pareto plot for the optimization is shown below.
Graph 5.1 Pareto 2D Plot for the Multi-Objective Optimization

51
Winter 2008
6. References
[01] [02]
Krish Ramesh, Introduction to Rotor Dynamics: A Physical Interpretation of the Principles and Applications of Rotor Dynamics, Dresser-Rand, Houston, TX. Hagg, A. C., and Sankey, G. O., Elastic and Damping Properties of Oil-Film Journal Bearings for Application to Unbalance Vibration Calculations, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 80, 1958, p. 141. Anders Angantyr, Jan Olov Aidanpaa, A Pareto-Based Genetic Algorithm Search Approach to Handle Damped Natural Frequency Constraints in Turbo Generator Rotor System Design, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, July 2004, Volume 126, Issue 3, pp. 619-625. B.S. Yang, S.P. Choi, Y.C. Kim, Vibration reduction optimum design of a steam-turbine rotor-bearing system using a hybrid genetic algorithm, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Industrial Applications, Volume 30, Number 1, July, 2005, pp. 43-53. Hamit Saruhan, Modeling and Simulation of Rotor-Bearing Systems, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, May 29-31, 2006, pp. 292-303. Yih-Hwang Lin, Sheng-Cheng Lin, Optimal weight design of rotor systems with oilfilm bearings subjected to frequency constraints, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, Volume 37, Number 10, September 2001 , pp. 777-798. H.D. Nelson, J.M. McVaugh, The dynamics of rotor-bearing systems using finite elements, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Ind. 93 (2) (1976), pp. 593-600. Rajan, M., Rajan, S. D., Nelson, H. D., and Chen, W. J., Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds in Rotor-Bearing Systems, ASME J. Vibr. Acoust., 109 (1987), pp. 152157. A. C. Ugural, Mechanical Design: An Integrated Approach, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. Joseph Edward Shigley, Charles R. Mischke, Richard Gordon Budynas, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2004. G.K. Grover, S.P. Nigam, Mechanical Vibrations, Published by Nem Chand & Bros, India, Seventh Edition, 2001. Panos Y. Papalambros, Douglass J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Panos Y. Papalambros, Model Reduction and Verification Techniques, in Advances in Design Optimization, H. Adeli (ed.), Chapman and Hall, 1994.
[03]
[04]
[05]
[06]
[07] [08] [09] [10] [11] [12] [13]
52
Winter 2008
Appendix I Optimization for Minimum Weight
1. MATLAB Code for Optimus-MATLAB Interface

clear all; close all; clc; % Design Variables % Shaft element diameters, d1, d2, d5, d6, d9, d10, d13, d14. % Shaft element lengths, l1, l2, l5, l6, l9, l10, l13, l14. % % % % Parameters Shaft element diameters d3 = d4 = 50mm, d7 = d8 = 58mm, d11 = d12 = 50mm Disc dimensions, Di = 58mm, Do = 300mm, Ld = 90mm Shaft element lengths l3 = l4 = 35mm, l7 = l8 = 45mm, l11 = l12 = 35mm
% Initialization - Shaft Element Diameters - Variables d1 = 40e-3; d2 = 45e-3; d5 = 65e-3; d6 = 50e-3; d9 = 70e-3; d10 = 50e-3; d13 = 55e-3; d14 = 50e-3; % Shaft Element Diameters - Parameters d3 = 50e-3; d4 = 50e-3; d7 = 58e-3; d8 = 58e-3; d11 = 50e-3; d12 = 50e-3; % Initialization - Shaft Element Lengths l1 = 75e-3; l2 = 100e-3; l5 = 35e-3; l6 = 130e-3; l9 = 45e-3; l10 = 120e-3; l13 = 55e-3; l14 = 100e-3; % Shaft Element Lengths - Parameters l3 = 35e-3; l4 = 35e-3; l7 = 45e-3; l8 = 45e-3; l11 = 35e-3; l12 = 35e-3; % Disc Data - Parameters Do = 300e-3; % Outer Diameter Di = 58e-3; % Inner Diameter Ld = 90e-3; % Length % Calculations % Objective Function (Weight of the Shaft) W = (7680*(1/4)*pi*d1^2)*l1 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d2^2)*l2 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d3^2)*l3 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d4^2)*l4 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d5^2)*l5 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d6^2)*l6 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d7^2)*l7 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d8^2)*l8 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d9^2)*l9 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d10^2)*l10 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d11^2)*l11 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d12^2)*l12 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d13^2)*l13 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d14^2)*l14;
53
Winter 2008
% Elemental Torques T1 = ((1.3159e4)*(d1^4)*l1)*1e8; T2 = ((1.3159e4)*(d2^4)*l2)*1e8; T5 = ((1.3159e4)*(d5^4)*l5)*1e8; T6 = ((1.3159e4)*(d6^4)*l6)*1e8; T9 = ((1.3159e4)*(d9^4)*l9)*1e8; T10 = ((1.3159e4)*(d10^4)*l10)*1e8; T13 = ((1.3159e4)*(d13^4)*l13)*1e8; T14 = ((1.3159e4)*(d14^4)*l14)*1e8; % Disc Force Fd = (5.9173e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Bearing Reaction Force Rb = (2.9586e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Moments on Shaft Elements M1 = (Rb*(l3+l2+l1) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1))*1e3; M2 = (Rb*(l3+l2) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2))*1e3; M5 = (-Fd*(l7+l6+l5) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5))*1e3; M6 = (-Fd*(l7+l6) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6))*1e3; M9 = (-Fd*(l8+l9) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9))*1e3; M10 = (-Fd*(l8+l9+l10) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10))*1e3; M13 = (Rb*(l12+l13) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13))*1e3; M14 = (Rb*(l12+l13+l14) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14))*1e3; % Constraints g1 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M1^2))+(1.125*(T1^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g2 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M2^2))+(1.125*(T2^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g3 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M5^2))+(1.125*(T5^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g4 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M6^2))+(1.125*(T6^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g5 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M9^2))+(1.125*(T9^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g6 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M10^2))+(1.125*(T10^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g7 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M13^2))+(1.125*(T13^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g8 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M14^2))+(1.125*(T14^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g9 = (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14) - 0.680; g10 = 0.640 - (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14); g11 = (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10) - 0.380; g12 = 0.280 - (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10);
d1; d2; d5; d6; d9; - d10; - d13; - d14;
54
Winter 2008
% Write Values of Objective Function and Constraints to File fid = fopen('shaft_optimization.txt','w'); fprintf(fid,'W = %f \n\n',W); fprintf(fid,'g1 = %f \n',g1); fprintf(fid,'g2 = %f \n',g2); fprintf(fid,'g3 = %f \n',g3); fprintf(fid,'g4 = %f \n',g4); fprintf(fid,'g5 = %f \n',g5); fprintf(fid,'g6 = %f \n',g6); fprintf(fid,'g7 = %f \n',g7); fprintf(fid,'g8 = %f \n',g8); fprintf(fid,'g9 = %f \n',g9); fprintf(fid,'g10 = %f \n',g10); fprintf(fid,'g11 = %f \n',g11); fprintf(fid,'g12 = %f',g12); fclose(fid);
55
Winter 2008
Appendix II Optimal Placement of Critical Speeds
1. ANSYS Macro for Optimus-ANSYS Interface

*SET,d1 *SET,d2 *SET,d3 *SET,d4 *SET,d5 *SET,d6 *SET,d7 *SET,d8 *SET,d9 *SET,d10 *SET,d11 *SET,d12 *SET,d13 *SET,d14 *SET,l1 *SET,l2 *SET,l3 *SET,l4 *SET,l5 *SET,l6 *SET,l7 *SET,l8 *SET,l9 *SET,l10 *SET,l11 *SET,l12 *SET,l13 *SET,l14 *SET,c1 *SET,c2 *SET,c3 *SET,c4 *SET,c5 *SET,c6 *SET,c7 *SET,c8 *SET,c9 *SET,c10 *SET,c11 *SET,c12 *SET,c13 *SET,c14 *SET,c15 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 40/1000 45/1000 50/1000 50/1000 65/1000 50/1000 58/1000 58/1000 70/1000 50/1000 50/1000 50/1000 55/1000 50/1000 75/1000 100/1000 35/1000 35/1000 35/1000 130/1000 45/1000 45/1000 45/1000 120/1000 35/1000 35/1000 55/1000 100/1000 -(l1 + l2 + l3 + -(l2 + l3 + l4 + -(l3 + l4 + l5 + -(l4 + l5 + l6 + -(l5 + l6 + l7) -(l6 + l7) -(l7) 0 (l8) (l8 + l9) (l8 + l9 + l10) (l8 + l9 + l10 + (l8 + l9 + l10 + (l8 + l9 + l10 + (l8 + l9 + l10 + l4 + l5 + l6 + l7) l5 + l6 + l7) l6 + l7) l7)
l11) l11 + l12) l11 + l12 + l13) l11 + l12 + l13 + l14)
*SET,kl , 1.5e7 *SET,kr , 2.5e7
56
Winter 2008
!* /NOPR /PMETH,OFF,0 KEYW,PR_SET,1 KEYW,PR_STRUC,1 KEYW,PR_THERM,0 KEYW,PR_FLUID,0 KEYW,PR_ELMAG,0 KEYW,MAGNOD,0 KEYW,MAGEDG,0 KEYW,MAGHFE,0 KEYW,MAGELC,0 KEYW,PR_MULTI,0 KEYW,PR_CFD,0 /GO !* /COM, /COM,Preferences for GUI filtering have been set to display: /COM, Structural !* /PREP7 !* MPTEMP,,,,,,,, MPTEMP,1,0 MPDATA,EX,1,,2e11 MPDATA,PRXY,1,,0.3 MPTEMP,,,,,,,, MPTEMP,1,0 MPDATA,DENS,1,,7680 !* ET,1,MASS21 !* ET,2,BEAM188 !* ET,3,COMBIN14 !* KEYOPT,2,1,0 KEYOPT,2,2,0 KEYOPT,2,3,2 KEYOPT,2,4,2 KEYOPT,2,6,0 KEYOPT,2,7,0 KEYOPT,2,8,0 KEYOPT,2,9,0 KEYOPT,2,10,0 KEYOPT,2,11,0 KEYOPT,2,12,0 !* !* R,1, ,31.7925, ,0.371, , , !* R,2,kl,3e10, , !* R,3,kr,3e10, , !*
57
Winter 2008
SECTYPE, 1, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d1/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 2, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d2/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 3, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d3/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 4, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d5/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 5, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d6/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 6, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d7/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 7, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d9/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 8, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d10/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 9, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d13/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 SECTYPE, 10, BEAM, CSOLID, , 0 SECOFFSET, CENT SECDATA,d14/2,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, K, ,c1,,, ,c2,,, ,c3,,, ,c4,,, ,c5,,, ,c6,,, ,c7,,, ,c8,,, ,c9,,, ,c10,,, ,c11,,, ,c12,,, ,c13,,, ,c14,,, ,c15,,,
/VIEW,1,1,1,1 /ANG,1 /REP,FAST K, ,c4,-100/1000,, K, ,c12,-100/1000,, K, ,c12,,-100/1000, K, ,c4,,-100/1000,
58
Winter 2008
LSTR, 1, LSTR, 2, LSTR, 3, LSTR, 4, LSTR, 5, LSTR, 6, LSTR, 7, LSTR, 8, LSTR, 9, LSTR, 10, LSTR, 11, LSTR, 12, LSTR, 13, LSTR, 14, LSTR, 17, LSTR, 18, LSTR, 16, LSTR, 19, CM,_Y,KP KSEL, , , , 8 CM,_Y1,KP CMSEL,S,_Y !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 KATT, 1, CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,17 FITEM,5,-18 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,2,3, , , ,1 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,15 FITEM,5,-16 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,3,3, , , ,1 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 12 12 4 4
1,
1,
59
Winter 2008
CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 1 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,1 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 2 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,2 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,3 FITEM,5,-4 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,3 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 5 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,4 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 6 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y
60
Winter 2008
!* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,5 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,7 FITEM,5,-8 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,6 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 9 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,7 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 10 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,8 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,11 FITEM,5,-12 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1
61
Winter 2008
LATT,1,1,2, , , ,3 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 13 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,9 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , , 14 CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,S,_Y !* !* CMSEL,S,_Y1 LATT,1,1,2, , , ,10 CMSEL,S,_Y CMDELE,_Y CMDELE,_Y1 !* FLST,5,4,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,15 FITEM,5,-18 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,,_Y !* LESIZE,_Y1, , ,1, , , , ,1 !* FLST,5,14,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,5,1 FITEM,5,-14 CM,_Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM,_Y1,LINE CMSEL,,_Y !* LESIZE,_Y1, , ,4, , , , ,1 !* KMESH, 8 GPLOT FLST,2,18,4,ORDE,2 FITEM,2,1 FITEM,2,-18 LMESH,P51X FINISH /SOL
62
Winter 2008
!* ANTYPE,2 !* MSAVE,0 !* MODOPT,LANB,10 EQSLV,SPAR MXPAND,10, , ,1 LUMPM,0 PSTRES,0 !* MODOPT,LANB,10,2,0, ,OFF FLST,2,4,1,ORDE,2 FITEM,2,58 FITEM,2,-61 !* /GO D,P51X, ,0, , , ,ALL, , , , , OMEGA,14000*0.10472,0,0,0 ACEL,0,-9.81,0, ! **************************************************** Solving Modal Analysis /STATUS,SOLU SOLVE FINISH ! **************************************************** Writing Result File !* *GET,FREQ_1,MODE,1,FREQ !* *GET,FREQ_2,MODE,2,FREQ !* *GET,FREQ_3,MODE,3,FREQ !* *GET,FREQ_4,MODE,4,FREQ !* *GET,FREQ_5,MODE,5,FREQ !* *CREATE,ansuitmp *CFOPEN,'eigenvalue_results','txt','N:\Uday\Critical Speeds\' *VWRITE,FREQ_1,FREQ_2,FREQ_3,FREQ_4,FREQ_5, , , , , (F7.3) *CFCLOS *END /INPUT,ansuitmp !*
63
Winter 2008

% Initialization - Shaft Element Diameters - Variables d1 = 40e-3; d2 = 45e-3; d5 = 65e-3; d6 = 50e-3; d9 = 70e-3; d10 = 50e-3; d13 = 55e-3; d14 = 50e-3; % Shaft Element Diameters - Parameters d3 = 50e-3; d4 = 50e-3; d7 = 58e-3; d8 = 58e-3; d11 = 50e-3; d12 = 50e-3; % Initialization - Shaft Element Lengths l1 = 75e-3; l2 = 100e-3; l5 = 35e-3; l6 = 130e-3; l9 = 45e-3; l10 = 120e-3; l13 = 55e-3; l14 = 100e-3; % Shaft Element Lengths - Parameters l3 = 35e-3; l4 = 35e-3; l7 = 45e-3; l8 = 45e-3; l11 = 35e-3; l12 = 35e-3; % Disc Data - Parameters Do = 300e-3; % Outer Diameter Di = 58e-3; % Inner Diameter Ld = 90e-3; % Length % Calculations % Objective Function (Separations Between the Critical Speeds and Limits of Operating Range) C = ((60*f2) - 11000) - ((60*f3) - 18000);
64
Winter 2008
% Elemental Torques T1 = ((1.3159e4)*(d1^4)*l1)*1e8; T2 = ((1.3159e4)*(d2^4)*l2)*1e8; T5 = ((1.3159e4)*(d5^4)*l5)*1e8; T6 = ((1.3159e4)*(d6^4)*l6)*1e8; T9 = ((1.3159e4)*(d9^4)*l9)*1e8; T10 = ((1.3159e4)*(d10^4)*l10)*1e8; T13 = ((1.3159e4)*(d13^4)*l13)*1e8; T14 = ((1.3159e4)*(d14^4)*l14)*1e8; % Disc Force Fd = (5.9173e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Bearing Reaction Force Rb = (2.9586e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Moments on Shaft Elements M1 = (Rb*(l3+l2+l1) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1))*1e3; M2 = (Rb*(l3+l2) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2))*1e3; M5 = (-Fd*(l7+l6+l5) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5))*1e3; M6 = (-Fd*(l7+l6) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6))*1e3; M9 = (-Fd*(l8+l9) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9))*1e3; M10 = (-Fd*(l8+l9+l10) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10))*1e3; M13 = (Rb*(l12+l13) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13))*1e3; M14 = (Rb*(l12+l13+l14) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14))*1e3; % Constraints g1 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M1^2))+(1.125*(T1^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g2 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M2^2))+(1.125*(T2^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g3 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M5^2))+(1.125*(T5^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g4 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M6^2))+(1.125*(T6^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g5 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M9^2))+(1.125*(T9^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g6 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M10^2))+(1.125*(T10^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g7 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M13^2))+(1.125*(T13^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g8 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M14^2))+(1.125*(T14^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g9 = (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14) - 0.680; g10 = 0.640 - (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14); g11 = (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10) - 0.380; g12 = 0.280 - (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10); g13 = ((1.2*(f2*60))/11000) - 1; g14 = ((1.1*18000)/(f3*60)) - 1; g15 = kl - 2e8; g16 = 2e6 - kl; g17 = kr - 2e8; g18 = 2e6 - kr; g19 = ((11000/1.5)/(60*f2)) - 1; g20 = ((f3*60)/(1.4*18000)) - 1;
d1; d2; d5; d6; d9; - d10; - d13; - d14;
65
Winter 2008
% Write Values of Objective Function and Constraints to File fid = fopen('shaft_optimization.txt','w'); fprintf(fid,'C = %f \n\n',C); fprintf(fid,'g1 = %f \n',g1); fprintf(fid,'g2 = %f \n',g2); fprintf(fid,'g3 = %f \n',g3); fprintf(fid,'g4 = %f \n',g4); fprintf(fid,'g5 = %f \n',g5); fprintf(fid,'g6 = %f \n',g6); fprintf(fid,'g7 = %f \n',g7); fprintf(fid,'g8 = %f \n',g8); fprintf(fid,'g9 = %f \n',g9); fprintf(fid,'g10 = %f \n',g10); fprintf(fid,'g11 = %f \n',g11); fprintf(fid,'g12 = %f \n',g12); fprintf(fid,'g13 = %f \n',g13); fprintf(fid,'g14 = %f \n',g14); fprintf(fid,'g15 = %f \n',g15); fprintf(fid,'g16 = %f \n',g16); fprintf(fid,'g17 = %f \n',g17); fprintf(fid,'g18 = %f \n',g18); fprintf(fid,'g19 = %f \n',g19); fprintf(fid,'g20 = %f',g20); fclose(fid);
66
Winter 2008
Appendix III System Integration

% Initialization - Shaft Element Diameters - Variables d1 = 40e-3; d2 = 45e-3; d5 = 65e-3; d6 = 50e-3; d9 = 70e-3; d10 = 50e-3; d13 = 55e-3; d14 = 50e-3; % Shaft Element Diameters - Parameters d3 = 50e-3; d4 = 50e-3; d7 = 58e-3; d8 = 58e-3; d11 = 50e-3; d12 = 50e-3; % Initialization - Shaft Element Lengths l1 = 75e-3; l2 = 100e-3; l5 = 35e-3; l6 = 130e-3; l9 = 45e-3; l10 = 120e-3; l13 = 55e-3; l14 = 100e-3; % Shaft Element Lengths - Parameters l3 = 35e-3; l4 = 35e-3; l7 = 45e-3; l8 = 45e-3; l11 = 35e-3; l12 = 35e-3; % Disc Data - Parameters Do = 300e-3; % Outer Diameter Di = 58e-3; % Inner Diameter Ld = 90e-3; % Length
67
Winter 2008
% Calculations % Objective Function 1 (Separations Between the Critical Speeds and Limits of Operating Range) C = ((60*f2) - 11000) - ((60*f3) - 18000);
% Objective Function 2 (Weight of the Shaft) W = (7680*(1/4)*pi*d1^2)*l1 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d2^2)*l2 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d3^2)*l3 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d4^2)*l4 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d5^2)*l5 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d6^2)*l6 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d7^2)*l7 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d8^2)*l8 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d9^2)*l9 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d10^2)*l10 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d11^2)*l11 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d12^2)*l12 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d13^2)*l13 + (7680*(1/4)*pi*d14^2)*l14;
% Elemental Torques T1 = ((1.3159e4)*(d1^4)*l1)*1e8; T2 = ((1.3159e4)*(d2^4)*l2)*1e8; T5 = ((1.3159e4)*(d5^4)*l5)*1e8; T6 = ((1.3159e4)*(d6^4)*l6)*1e8; T9 = ((1.3159e4)*(d9^4)*l9)*1e8; T10 = ((1.3159e4)*(d10^4)*l10)*1e8; T13 = ((1.3159e4)*(d13^4)*l13)*1e8; T14 = ((1.3159e4)*(d14^4)*l14)*1e8; % Disc Force Fd = (5.9173e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Bearing Reaction Force Rb = (2.9586e4)*(((Do-Di)^2)*Ld + (d1^2)*l1 + (d2^2)*l2 + (d3^2)*l3 + (d4^2)*l4 + (d5^2)*l5 + (d6^2)*l6 + (d7^2)*l7 + (d8^2)*l8 + (d9^2)*l9 + (d10^2)*l10 + (d11^2)*l11 + (d12^2)*l12 + (d13^2)*l13 + (d14^2)*l14); % Moments on Shaft Elements M1 = (Rb*(l3+l2+l1) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2+l1))*1e3; M2 = (Rb*(l3+l2) - Fd*(l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5+l4+l3+l2))*1e3; M5 = (-Fd*(l7+l6+l5) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6+l5))*1e3; M6 = (-Fd*(l7+l6) + Rb*(l11+l10+l9+l8+l7+l6))*1e3; M9 = (-Fd*(l8+l9) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9))*1e3; M10 = (-Fd*(l8+l9+l10) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10))*1e3; M13 = (Rb*(l12+l13) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13))*1e3; M14 = (Rb*(l12+l13+l14) - Fd*(l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14) + Rb*(l4+l5+l6+l7+l8+l9+l10+l11+l12+l13+l14))*1e3;
68
Winter 2008
% Constraints g1 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M1^2))+(1.125*(T1^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g2 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M2^2))+(1.125*(T2^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g3 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M5^2))+(1.125*(T5^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g4 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M6^2))+(1.125*(T6^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g5 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M9^2))+(1.125*(T9^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g6 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M10^2))+(1.125*(T10^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g7 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M13^2))+(1.125*(T13^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g8 = (((1.2223e-7)*(((58.5938*(M14^2))+(1.125*(T14^2)))^0.5))^1/3) g9 = (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14) - 0.680; g10 = 0.640 - (l1 + l2 + l5 + l6 + l9 + l10 + l13 + l14); g11 = (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10) - 0.380; g12 = 0.280 - (l5 + l6 + l9 + l10); g13 = ((1.2*(f2*60))/11000) - 1; g14 = ((1.1*18000)/(f3*60)) - 1; g15 = kl - 2e8; g16 = 2e6 - kl; g17 = kr - 2e8; g18 = 2e6 - kr; g19 = ((11000/1.5)/(60*f2)) - 1; g20 = ((f3*60)/(1.4*18000)) - 1; % Write Values of Objective Function and Constraints to File fid = fopen('shaft_optimization.txt','w'); fprintf(fid,'C = %f \n\n',C); fprintf(fid,'W = %f \n\n',W); fprintf(fid,'g1 = %f \n',g1); fprintf(fid,'g2 = %f \n',g2); fprintf(fid,'g3 = %f \n',g3); fprintf(fid,'g4 = %f \n',g4); fprintf(fid,'g5 = %f \n',g5); fprintf(fid,'g6 = %f \n',g6); fprintf(fid,'g7 = %f \n',g7); fprintf(fid,'g8 = %f \n',g8); fprintf(fid,'g9 = %f \n',g9); fprintf(fid,'g10 = %f \n',g10); fprintf(fid,'g11 = %f \n',g11); fprintf(fid,'g12 = %f \n',g12); fprintf(fid,'g13 = %f \n',g13); fprintf(fid,'g14 = %f \n',g14); fprintf(fid,'g15 = %f \n',g15); fprintf(fid,'g16 = %f \n',g16); fprintf(fid,'g17 = %f \n',g17); fprintf(fid,'g18 = %f \n',g18); fprintf(fid,'g19 = %f \n',g19); fprintf(fid,'g20 = %f',g20); fclose(fid);
d1; d2; d5; d6; d9; - d10; - d13; - d14;
69

Rotordynamic Design Optimization of A Steam Turbine Rotor Bearing System

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rotordynamic Design Optimization of A Steam Turbine Rotor Bearing System

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rotordynamic Design Optimization of a Steam Turbine Rotor Bearing System

Submitted: April 14, 2008

Udayraj Somashekar Ramzi Bazzi

Students Udayraj Somashekar Ramzi Bazzi

Subsystem Design 2.1 Nomenclature

System Integration 5.1 5.2 Optimization Study Results

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

n = factor of safety, S y = yield strength of the shaft material,

ME555 - Design Optimization

K b , K c , and K d are the size, notch, and surface factors, respectively,

between the shaft sections under investigation), and finally,

ME555 - Design Optimization

Ti = 1.3159 10 4 d i li (i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14, with no summation on the index i)

14 2 2 Fv = Fd + Fs = 5.9173 104 (Do 0.068) Ld + d i li i =1

ME555 - Design Optimization

Bearing reaction force,

2 2 Rb = 2.9586 104 (Do 0.068) Ld + d i li i =1

M 5 = Fv (l7 + l6 + l5 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 + l5 ) M 6 = Fv (l7 + l6 ) + Rb (l11 + l10 + l9 + l8 + l7 + l6 ) M 9 = Fv (l8 + l9 ) + Rb (l 4 + l5 + l6 + l7 + l8 + l9 )

1 (M max M min ) 2 1 = (Tmax Tmin ) 2

ME555 - Design Optimization

Hence, the Soderberg failure criterion equation reduces to,

d i 1.2223 10 7 58.5938 M i + 1.125 Ti

, where i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14.

ME555 - Design Optimization

1.2. Finite Element Model Development

Figure 1.2.1 A Rotor-Bearing-Foundation system

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

3. Optimization for Minimum Weight (by Ramzi Bazzi)

ME555 - Design Optimization

d i 1.2223 10 7 58.5938 M i + 1.125 Ti

, where i = 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14,

ME555 - Design Optimization

440 Bs 540 440 (l 4 + l5 + l 6 + l 7 + l8 + l9 + l10 + l11 ) 540

ME555 - Design Optimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

3.4. Model Summary Objective function: Minimize W = ai li

{1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10 {1.2223 10

[58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M [58.5938 M

+ 1.125 T5 + 1.125 T6 + 1.125 T9

+ 1.125 T10 + 1.125 T13

ME555 - Design Optimization

Variable F g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12

ME555 - Design Optimization

Original Length (mm) 75 100 35 35 35 130 45 45 45 120 35 35 55 100

Original Diameter (mm) 40 45 50 50 65 50 58 58 70 50 50 50 55 50

Original Weight (Kg) 14.39

Optimum Weight (Kg) 7.54

Percentage Reduction 47.60 %

Table 3.2 Results of Weight Minimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

The optimization results from Optimus are shown below.

Image 3.1 Optimus Results for Weight Minimization

ME555 - Design Optimization

Image 3.2 Original Configuration of the Rotor