Natural frequency in stationary and rotating frames....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the differences in calculating natural frequencies using stationary versus rotating coordinate frames, particularly in the context of a 1D spring-mass-damper system subjected to a rotating unbalance input force. Participants explore the implications of these calculations on the resulting amplitude versus frequency characteristics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach to modeling a 1D spring-mass-damper system in both stationary and rotating frames, presenting equations of motion for each frame.
  • The equations for the stationary frame are presented, showing independent solutions, while the rotating frame equations incorporate Coriolis forces, complicating the solution process.
  • Results indicate a sharp increase in amplitude at a specific frequency in the stationary frame, while the rotating frame shows a steady rise without a sharp increase, although low-frequency results match those of the stationary frame.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the driving forces in the rotating frame, prompting a response that these forces are transformed as part of the equations of motion.
  • There is a follow-up inquiry regarding the treatment of damping forces in the rotating frame, indicating a need for further clarification on this aspect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants have not reached a consensus on the treatment of damping forces in the rotating frame, and there are ongoing questions about the transformation of driving forces. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these transformations on the results.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted the complexity introduced by Coriolis forces in the rotating frame equations, and there is an acknowledgment of the need for clarity on how damping is treated in this context. The discussion does not resolve these issues.

tricha122
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to gain insight into using stationary vs. rotating coordinate frames for natural frequency calculations. I have seen many FE codes suggest that critical frequencies can be calculated differently in rotating and inertial frames, so i wanted to do a 1D calc to see for myself how things could be different.

I am trying to model a 1D spring-mass-damper with an rotating unbalance input force in both frames, and solve them numerically for a sweep of input frequencies to view the output displacement vs. frequency. And i expect to see a sharp increase where w = sqrt(K/M)

The equations of motion i am solving are as follows:

Stationary Frame:

M*x'' + C*x' + K*x = m*e*w^2*cos(w*t)
M*y'' + C*y' + K*y = m*e*w^2*sin(w*t)

these equations can be solved independently

For the rotating frame, i apply the transformation:
x = x1*cos(w*t) - y1*sin(w*t)
y = x1*sin(w*t) + y1*cos(w*t)

where x1, y1 are in the rotating frame, x1 is along the radius, y1 is "circumferential"

when i plug in this transformation, and simplify i get the following equations:

Mx1'' = -Kx1 - C(x1'-y1*w) + 2*M*y1'*w+m*(x1+e)*w^2
My1'' = -Ky1 - C(y1'+x1*w) - 2*M*x1'*w+m*y1*w^2

where the equations cannot be solved independently due to the coriolis force. (CF force shows up too).

I solved both stationary & rotating frame equations using M = 200, K = 104000, C = 10, m = 1, w = variable over a long "time" so that the damping could get rid of the "particular solution". After a long "time" i output the max amplitude. This resulted in an amplitude vs. input frequency chart

The stationary frame showed a sharp increase at w = ~22 = (sqrt(104000/200)) as expected.
The rotating frame showed no sharp increase, just steady rising with the forcing function. The strange part however was that at low frequencies, the results were identical to the stationary frame.

Can anyone shed some light on this? i have attached an image of my output. I also uploaded text files of the MATLAB code i was running.
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
tricha122 said:
when i plug in this transformation, and simplify i get the following equations
Just checking: can you show your work, or at least state that you also describe the driving forces in the rotating frame ?
 
BvU said:
Just checking: can you show your work, or at least state that you also describe the driving forces in the rotating frame ?

The driving forces are transformed as a result of the equations of motion being transformed.

The reference below [Linear and Nonlinear Rotordynamic by Ishida & Yamamoto] shows the equations of motion - they are the same as mine with the exception that i added damping terms to the inertial frame prior to transforming.

upload_2018-6-4_18-26-28.png


upload_2018-6-4_18-27-7.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-4_18-26-28.png
    upload_2018-6-4_18-26-28.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 536
  • upload_2018-6-4_18-27-7.png
    upload_2018-6-4_18-27-7.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 572
Ok, so driving force is transformed. How about damping force ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K