Active Vibration Control of Rotor on Moving Base

Using Electromagnetic Actuator with Viscoelastic

Characteristics

Mechanical Engineering Departmental Seminar

Presented by:
Tukesh Soni
2013MEZ8475

Supervisor:
Prof. J K Dutt
Dr. A S Das
Highlights of the work

The work addresses vibration control of a flexible rotor-shaft

mounted on a generally moving base (e.g. rotors mounted on ships
and air-planes)
 The base is thus a non-inertial reference frame.

 The equations of motion get time varying coefficients or have

parametric excitation; causing excessive vibration even in fairly

balanced rotors
 The control action is performed by an Electro-magnetic actuator

suitably placed at a rotor-shaft section

 Highlights of the work

 Normally the controller force is designed as per a Proportional Derivative

(PD ≡ 2-element or Voigt model) control law applied to the displacement
feed back of the shaft section.
 This work investigates the possibility of using a Force displacement

relationship of a Viscoelastic Semisolid as the control law (a 3-element

control law) and finds the same very useful.
 The rotor response becomes lesser compared to the 2-element controller

at the expense of lesser control current

 Introduction: Examples of Moving Reference Frames

Figure showing a marine vessel The airplane has large roll, sway and
maneuvering through sea. The ship rotor is yaw motion during flight, thus the rotor
subject to large base motion leading to mounted on plane is exposed to large
parametric excitation. base motion.
Image taken from:www.ametuniv.ac.in Image taken from:www.decodedscience.org
Rotor Bearing System with Actuator

F : Inertial frame of reference

F : Non-inertial frame of 0reference fixed to rotor base
F b: Non-inertial frame of reference fixed to rotor shaft.
s
Electromagnetic Actuator

𝐹𝑌 = 𝑘𝑖 𝑖𝑐𝑌 + 𝑘𝑠 𝑣; 𝐹𝑍
= 𝑘𝑖 𝑖𝑐𝑍 + 𝑘𝑠 𝑤
Control Architecture
Control Action of the Actuator and Control Laws
PD or Two element control

Where, kp and kv are proportional and derivative gain

Three Element Control
Three Element Control

The actuator force can then be found as,

Control Action of the Actuator and Control Laws

Three element control

𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝐴1 = 𝑘1 𝑘2 ; 𝐴2 = 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 𝑐1 ; 𝐵1 = 𝑘2 ; 𝐵2 = 𝑐2
 Kinematics
Position and velocity vector of a generic point ‘C’ on the shaft is given as,

Absolute velocity of point ‘C’, is then obtained by differentiating the above expression with time,
Assembled Equations of Motion

where,
(a) [M] is the assembled mass matrix,
(b) [D] is the assembled matrix coefficient to the global velocity vector, which
includes damping components, gyroscopic effects, Coriolis components of
acceleration etc.,
(c) [K] is the assembled stiffness matrix which apart from bending stiffness matrix,
also includes the circulatory matrix, the parametric stiffness matrices due to base
motion and bearing stiffness matrix,
(d) {f} is the global load vector due to mass unbalance, inertia forces due to base
motion and force due to gravity.
Details of Finite Element Matrices Obtained

The D and K global matrices can be seen to have dependence on base

motion terms, which makes the system parametric excited.
Details of Finite Element Matrices Obtained

The f vector above can also be seen to have dependence on base

motion terms, which makes the system parametric excited.
Results
System details:
A Schematic Diagram of Rotor-Shaft System with Actuator
Results (contd..)
Electromagnetic actuator details

Base motion details:

The base motion taken for simulation in the present work is a typical motion of an airplane taking
a turn. The base motion considered comprises of the following:
(a) a constant forward velocity of 200 m/s of the base.
(b) a sinusoidal roll motion of the base for 2 seconds, which starts at 10 second. The roll angle
varies from 0° to a maximum of 30° over first 1 second and then decreases again to 0° over the
next 1 second.
(c) the yaw motion also starts at 10 second of the flight. Yaw motion of base is taken to be
constant for 2 seconds. The turn radius for the base is 800 meters.
Campbell Diagram
 The figure shows the Campbell
Diagram for the rotor bearing
system with and without the two
controllers.
 No base motion is considered for
drawing this diagram, since
inclusion of base motion in a
such a system would render the
problem as a forced vibration
one and therefore plotting
Campbell Diagram would not be
possible.
 It is clear from the figure that
‘with control’ the first critical
speed for the rotor bearing
system increases from ~2200
rpm to ~3500 rpm.
Maximum real part of Eigen values

 The figure shows the plot of

maximum real part of Eigen
Value for the three cases.
 It is clearly seen that with ‘3-
element controller’ the margin of
stability is greatly increased.
 Design of Controller Parameters
 Optimal control parameters are obtained for 2-element control using Genetic algorithm.
 Constrained multi-objective optimization was done with minimization of rotor disk
deflection.
 Constraint was imposed on the maximum value of the control current.
 Control parameters for 3-element control were decided based on trial and error.
 However, optimization for 3-element control was not attempted. Therefore, the chosen
gain values can at best be viewed as good choices for gain, but are not the optimized
values of the same.
2-Element Control kp = 9229; kv= 9609
(Optimum)
5 4
3-Element Control (Non- k1= 5 X 10 ; k2 = 5 X 10 ;
optimum values) c1 = 700
Time response at rotor disk

The maximum rotor disk displacement for the ‘without control’ case and with 2-element
control is above 1 mm, which may result in rotor-stator contact. However with 3-element
controller the maximum rotor disk displacement is much less than 1 mm.
Control current for two controllers

As seen from the figure above, the control current requirement for a 3-element
control is much less than that for a 2-element control. As a virtue of this fact, the 3-
element controller would result in much lighter and economical control hardware.
Conclusion
 The 3-element controller more efficiently mitigates vibration as
compared to the 2-element control.


 The control current required for 3-element control model is

considerably less than the 2-element control model which would
directly translate into lighter and economical control hardware.


 The settling time for the response and the control current is
substantially less for 3-element control model as compared to
the 2-element control model.
References
References
Extra Slide 1
Extra Slide 2
Extra Slide 3
Extra Slide 4
Extra Slide 5
Extra Slide 6
Energy equation for rotor shaft and rotor disk
elements
Energy equation for rotor shaft and rotor disk
elements
Energy equation for rotor shaft and rotor disk
elements
Energy equation for rotor shaft and rotor disk
elements
Extra Slide 7