Natural frequency in stationary and rotating frames....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the differences in calculating natural frequencies using stationary and rotating coordinate frames, specifically in the context of a 1D spring-mass-damper model. The equations of motion for both frames were derived, with the stationary frame yielding a sharp increase in amplitude at the natural frequency of approximately 22 rad/s, while the rotating frame exhibited a steady rise without a distinct peak. The transformation applied to the rotating frame introduces Coriolis forces, complicating the solution. The findings highlight the importance of understanding how driving and damping forces are affected by frame transformations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of natural frequency calculations
  • Familiarity with equations of motion in mechanical systems
  • Knowledge of frame transformations in dynamics
  • Proficiency in MATLAB for numerical simulations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the effects of Coriolis forces in rotating systems
  • Explore advanced topics in rotordynamics using "Linear and Nonlinear Rotordynamic" by Ishida & Yamamoto
  • Learn about numerical methods for solving differential equations in MATLAB
  • Investigate the impact of damping on dynamic systems in rotating frames
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, dynamics researchers, and students studying rotordynamics or vibration analysis will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the implications of coordinate frame transformations on natural frequency calculations.

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: 529
  • upload_2018-6-4_18-27-7.png
    upload_2018-6-4_18-27-7.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 564
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
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K