A1 - Childs, Dara W.
A1 - Kumar, Dhruv
T1 - Dry-Friction Whip and Whirl Predictions for a Rotor-Stator Model With Rubbing Contact at Two Locations
RT - PROC
YR - 2011
SP - 207
EP - 218
C1 - Volume 6: Structures and Dynamics, Parts A and B
VO -
IS - 54662
C2 - Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air
DO - 10.1115/GT2011-45081
UL - http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/GT2011-45081
AB - The present work investigates the phenomena of whip and whirl for a rigid rotor contacting at two bearing locations. The idea originated with a paper by Clark et al. in 2009 on an anemometer undergoing dry friction whip and whirl. The anemometer rotor was supported by two Teflon® bushings within an elastically supported housing. The dry-friction forces arose at the bushings. Prior models for dry friction whirl and whip have considered rub at one non-support location. The present analytical model consists of a rigid rotor connected to a rigid stator at two rubbing contact locations. Analytical solutions are developed for the following normal reaction forces at the contact locations: (1) In phase, and (2) 180 degrees out of phase. Analytical solutions are only possible for the same RCl (Radius to Clearance ratio) at the two rub locations and define regions where dry-friction whirl is possible plus indication possible boundaries between whirl and whip. These solutions are similar to Black’s in 1968. A flexible-rotor/flexible-stator model with nonlinear connections at the bearings was developed to more correctly establish the range of possible solutions. The nonlinear connections at the rub surface are modeled using Hunt and Crossley’s 1975 contact model with coulomb friction. Dry friction simulations are performed for the following rotor center of gravity (C.G.) configurations: (1) Centered, (2) 3/4 contact-span location and (3) Overhang location outside the contacts. Results from the in-phase analytical solutions and the nonlinear simulations agree to some extent with the rotor mass centered and at 3/4 location in that whirl-to-whip transitions occur near the pinned rotor-stator bounce frequency. For the overhung mass case, the nonlinear simulation predicts whip at different frequencies for the two contact locations. Neither analytical solution modes predicts this outcome. No out-of-phase solutions could be obtained via time-transient simulations. Dry-friction whirling is normally characterized as supersynchronous precession with a precession frequency equal to running speed times RCl. Simulation predictions for models with different RCl mimic whirling. Simulation predictions show increasing backward precessional (BP) frequency with increasing rotor speeds. However, individual contact velocities show slipping at all conditions. Slipping is greater at one location than the other, netting a “whirl-like” motion. For the overhung model with different RCl ratios, apart from whipping at different frequency the two contacts also whirl at different frequencies corresponding to the RCl at the respective contacts. Simulations predict a different running speed for the “jump up” in precession frequency associated with a transition from whirl-to-whip with increasing running speed than for the jump-down in precession frequency for whirl-to-whip in a speed-decreasing mode.