Professional Documents
Culture Documents
38
Elvin AA, Elvin NG. Structures subjected to startup and shutdown of rotating machinery.
J. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2015;57(1), Art. #1066, 9 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2309-8775/2015/v57n1a4
(a)
(b)
0.2
Startup
0.15
Acceleration (g)
Steady-state
0.10
0.05
0
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Time (sec)
(c)
0.2
0.10
0.05
z
0
y 965 970 975 980 985
Time (sec)
x
Figure 1 ( a) Structure subjected to startup and shutdown transient dynamic loading, (b) Acceleration time history in the X direction of the top of the
structure during startup and steady-state, and (c) Acceleration time history for the structure during shutdown; accelerations measured in g
(9.81 m/s2) by a ± 3 g accelerometer u3DPebble (ZeroPoint Technology) sampling at 1 000 Hz (courtesy of Matomo (Pty) Ltd)
steady-state operation, while the latter figure dynamics are presented. This includes esti- The natural frequencies of the structure can
captures the shutdown behaviour. As can mating the unbalanced rotating force function be estimated either through the use of lookup
be seen clearly, the maximum acceleration and the resulting magnitude of the structure’s tables (see for example Arya et al 1979 and
response of the structure during startup response. Next the effect of machine startup Blevins 1979) or through the use of more
and shutdown is significantly greater than and shutdown is quantified, and normalised refined computational methods (typically
the operating or steady-state response. response graphs presented. The slope of the matrix or finite element methods) (Weaver &
Furthermore, the peak response of the struc- ramp startup and shutdown for various damp- Johnston 1987). The damping of the structure
ture is greater during shutdown than during ing ratios is studied. The paper is concluded is estimated either from previously measured
startup. The focus of the present paper is to with two analysis examples that illustrate the results of similar structures or from design
characterise fully the response of a single- importance of considering startup dynamics databases (Regulatory Guide 2007). The load-
degree-of-freedom structure subjected to when designing low-tuned support structures ing amplitude and frequency of the machine
both machine startup and shutdown. under rotating machinery. on the structure should be provided by the
Previous work by Elvin and Elvin manufacturer of the machine.
(2012) introduced the problem of startup Whichever method is used, the funda-
dynamics and presented some preliminary STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS mental ordinary differential equations that
results for the response of simple, typical BACKGROUND have to be solved are of the form:
one-degree-of-freedom structures support- [Note: This background section is included
ing rotating machinery subjected only to for completeness and ease of reading. The Mv̈ + Cv̇ + Kv = f(t)(1)
startup conditions. This paper considers the advanced reader might want to skip to
generalised response of any multi-degree- the end of this section where the machine where M is the equivalent mass of the sys-
of-freedom structure subjected to startup startup and shutdown characteristics are tem, C is the damping, K is the equivalent
and shutdown over a range of damping coef- introduced.] stiffness, f(t) is the applied loading as a
ficients, and abstracts this information into Any structural dynamic analysis requires function of time t, v is the displacement of
normalised curves. an estimation of the natural frequencies, the the structure and t is time. The over-dots
The present paper is organised as follows. damping of the structure and the loading indicate derivatives with respect to time.
First the governing equations of structural amplitude and frequency on the structure. It should be noted that in this paper we
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015 39
12
Me ζ = 0.02
e 10
Θ ζ = 0.05
8 High-tuned Low-tuned
Xd M
6
Me e
Figure 2 A
rotating machine which includes an ζ = 0.1
unbalanced mass Me and eccentricity e
4
consider only a single-degree-of-freedom
approximation to the natural frequency of
the structure. This is an adequate approxi- 2
mation provided that the natural frequencies
of the structure are not closely spaced. A full
explanation of this approximation can be 0
found in any standard structural dynamics 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
text such as Chopra (1995). Ω
ω
Equation (1) can be rewritten in the form:
Figure 3 T he normalised magnitude of the response of the structure under harmonic loading for
f(t) various damping ratios
v̈ + 2ζωv̇ + ω2v = (2)
M
Note here that the steady-state displace- ÿ = e[Θ̈cosΘ – (Θ̇)2 sinΘ](10)
where ω is the radial resonant frequency of ment amplitude Xd in Equation (5) has been
the structure, and ζ is the damping coef- normalised and can be plotted for various Note that for the constant angular velocity
ficient, given by: Ω case (Ω = Ωc) Equation (10) reduces to:
driving frequency ratios and damp-
ω
K C ing coefficients (ζ) as shown in Figure 3. ẍ = –eΩc2 cosΩct
ω= = 2πf n ζ = (3)
M 2Mω Resonance can clearly be seen when the
natural frequency approximately matches the
Here f n is the natural frequency of the struc- Ω ÿ = –eΩc2 sinΩct
machine’s operating frequency, i.e. ≈ 1.
ture (in Hz). ω
The displacement of the structure is Note that in the case of resonance, i.e. which is equivalent to the loading given in
found from solving either Equation (1) or Ω Equation (4).
= 1 (Chopra 1995):
Equation (2), from which the forces and thus ω Let us now consider the linear startup
stresses can then be calculated. and shutdown angular velocity profiles
Xd M 1 shown in Figure 4.
≈ (6)
Estimating the unbalanced Mee 2ζ The linear startup and shutdown
rotating force f(t) rotational speed profiles in Hertz, Φ , are
Given a rotating machine schematically shown For the rotating machine shown in Figure 2, the approximations of the startup dynamics of
in Figure 2, the loading due to the rotation is position [x, y] of the eccentric mass is given by: typical machinery (Wach 2011). The method
well known (Tse et al (1963) and is given by: derived in this paper, however, can be used
[x, y] = [ecosΘ, esinΘ](7) for any general startup profile.
f(t) = MeeΩ2 sin(Ωt)(4) The linear startup profile is analytically
Here Θ is the angle of the eccentric mass to given by:
where Me is the unbalanced mass, e is the the horizontal at any time t and is given by:
eccentricity of the mass from the machines t
Φ(τ) = mτ for 0 < τ < τ f and
rotational center and Ω is the rotating fre- Θ(t) = ∫Ω(τ)dτ(8)
quency of the machine (in radians/second). 0 Φ(τ) = Φf for τ > τ f(11)
The magnitude of the steady-state solution
(i.e. long-term solution) to Equation (2) under where τ is a dummy time variable. This can also be written in terms of machine
this harmonic loading can then be calculated radial frequency (Ω) in rads/sec as:
using standard techniques (Chopra 1995) The unbalanced forces are then given by:
and is shown in Figure 2. Ω(τ) = (2πm)τ for 0 < τ < τ f and
[ fx(t),f y(t)] = –Me[ẍ,ÿ](9)
Ω 2
Ω(τ) = Ωf for
τ > τ f(12)
Xd M ω with
= (5)
Mee Ω 2 2 Ω 2
For the sloping portion, the acceleration com-
1– + 2ζ
ω ω ẍ = –e[Θ̈sinΘ + (Θ̇)2 cosΘ] ponents of the eccentric mass are given by:
40 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015
ẍ = –e[2πmsin(πmt 2) + (2πmt)2 cos(πmt 2)]
Φ(τ) (Hz)
is solved numerically subjected to the
forces from Equation (9) and the accelera-
tions from Equation (13). A Runge-Kutta
method (code45 in Matlab®) was used to
m
solve these equations. Figure 5 shows the
normalised time history for a single-degree-
m of-freedom system with three different
ramp-up speeds (m) corresponding to
τf slow, m
edium and fast. The time history
is normalised by the natural period Tn
of the system; the natural period is given
τ τ
1
by Tn = . Note that, as the linear ramp
fn
Figure 4 Linear startup (left) and shutdown (right) profiles slope decreases (bottom plot in Figure 5),
10
1ζ
2
Xd M
0
Me e
1ζ
2
–10
10
1ζ
2
Xd M
0
Me e
1ζ
2
–10
10
1ζ
2
Xd M
0
Me e
1ζ
2
–10
Figure 5 T he normalised displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system subjected to a ramp startup; the system damping is taken as
ζ = 0.05, with fn2/(2m) = 3.125 (top), 25 (middle) and 62.5 (bottom); the final frequency is Φf = 1.2 fn
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015 41
2ζXdM
= 1
Mee
0.2
COMPARISON OF RAMP STARTUP
WITH SYSTEM AT RESONANCE
0 Consider the transient response of a
101 102 103 structure subjected to a rotating machine
f n2
j= operating at a constant frequency equal
2m
to the resonant frequency of the structure
Figure 7 T he normalised maximum displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system (assume the motor reaches its operating
subjected to a ramp shutdown of a rotating machine for various damping ratios frequency instantaneously). If the structure
is assumed to be initially at rest, the time
the maximum response of the system number of cycles, j, will be used as a non- history response of the structure is shown
approaches the resonant response of the dimensional normalisation parameter. in Figure 8. The envelope of the maximal
1 In order to normalise further the maxi- response (blue lines in Figure 8) is well
system, i.e. ζ.
2 mum displacement response, an updated known and is given by Chopra (1995).
The shutdown case is analogous to the parameter which takes into account the Normalising this envelope produces:
startup case but with modified Equations damping ratio is proposed:
(11) to (13). For brevity these equations are 2ζXdM
= 1 – e–ζωnt = 1 – e–2πjnζ(14)
not presented here. 2ζXdM Mee
Note that for a linear ramp startup Mee ωn
where jn = is the number of cycles to
profile, the number of cycles to reach the 2π
resonant frequency ( f n) of the single degree Note that now the normalised maximum which the system is subjected. Note that, as
f2 harmonic response when the single-degree- expected, the normalised response approach-
of freedom system is given by j = n . This
2m of-freedom system is in resonance is: es unity as jn increases.
42 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015
Figure 9 shows the normalised maximal
response of the linear startup profile (blue
1.0
curves) and the maximal response of the
structure subjected to a machine operating
at resonance (green curves) after jn cycles.
Please note that for the machine operating 0.5
at resonance the maximal response is given
at jn cycles, while for the linear ramp startup
profile, the maximal response can occur
2ζXdM
when the machine has passed through reso- 0
Me e
nance. Thus the definitions of the number
of cycles to resonance are different in the
two cases. In the resonant condition, j = jn
is the actual number of cycles the machine –0.5
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015 43
Table 1 P
roperties for the structures shown in Figure 10; those in the shaded row are only 1 800 rpm (i.e. 30 Hz). An initial modal analy-
applicable to the braced structure shown in Figure 10(b) sis, with parameters shown in Table 1, has been
performed and yields a first natural frequency
Property Value
of 4.20 Hz, with the first vibration mode shape
Length: 6 m shown in Figure 11(a). The structure is thus
Section area: 6.46×10 -3m 2 low-tuned. The connections in the structure
356x171x51UB
Beam:
2nd Moment of area: 1.42×10 -4m4
are a combination of welded and bolted joints;
Mass: 304.27 kg
a 2% damping ratio for the first two modes is
Length: 5 m assumed. As is common in dynamic analysis,
Section area: 5.70×10 -3m 2 Rayleigh (also known as proportional) damping
356x171x45UB
Columns:
2nd Moment of area: 1.21×10 -4m4 is assumed for the structure.
Mass: 223.73 kg (each) Two types of analyses are performed on
Length: 5.83 m the structure, the first being a simple one-
Section area: 1.06×10 -3m 2 degree-of-freedom analysis, and the second
70x70x8L
Bracing: a full transient matrix method analysis. The
2nd Moment of area: 0.48×10 -6m4
Mass: 48.52 kg (each) results are then compared.
Mass: 600.00 kg
One-degree-of-freedom
Operating frequency (Φ f ): 30 Hz
Machine: approximation
Linear startup speed (m): 1 Hz/second
The one-degree-of-freedom analysis can be
Eccentric moment (Mee): 6 kg∙m
performed by estimating (a) the lateral stiffness
(a) (b)
5.0 5.0
4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 10 (a) Pinned portal frame geometry, and (b) K-braced portal frame geometry supporting a motor of mass 600 kg
(a) (b)
5.0 5.0
4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 11 (a) Pinned portal frame’s first mode shape; natural frequency is 4.20 Hz; (b) K-braced portal frame’s first mode shape; natural frequency is 20.91 Hz
44 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015
of the structure (K), and (b) the vibrating mass 0.2
(M). The estimation of the stiffness can be (a)
Maximal response
performed in a number of ways. For example, during startup
using the simplified analysis approximation of 0.1
Displacement (m)
Silva and Badie (2008) of a pinned rectangular
Steady-state response
portal frame, the lateral stiffness is given by: 0
24EIc Lb Ib
K≈ and κ ≈ and α ≈
2κ Lc Ic –0.1
Lc3 4 +
α
–0.2
where E is the elastic modulus, I is the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
second moment of area and L is length. The Time (s)
subscripts b and c correspond to the beam 0.2
and column respectively. (b)
The stiffness of the structure in the Maximal response
during startup
lateral direction can also be calculated using 0.1
Displacement (m)
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015 45
CONCLUSION during startup for fast ramp-up speeds, and REFERENCES
The effect of startup and shutdown on to overestimate the response for slow ramp- Arya, S C, O’Neill, M W & Pincus, G 1979. Design of
low-tuned structures subjected to rotating up speeds (Figure 9). Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines.
loads has been discussed in this paper over It must be emphasised that the deflection Houston, TX, US: Gulf Publishing Co.
a relatively wide range of startup speeds and during startup/shutdown can be significantly Bachmann, H & Ammann, W J 1987. Vibrations
damping coefficients. The maximum deflec- greater than the steady-state response, and in structures – Induced by man and
tion results have been normalised to produce thus cannot be ignored. This point has been machines. Structural Engineering Documents,
generalised response curves. The curves can illustrated by two example problems which Vol 3e, Zürich: International Association of Bridge
be used in simplified one-degree-of-freedom analysed an unbraced and braced low-tuned and Structural Engineering (IABSE).
analyses to predict accurately these maxi- portal frame subjected to loading from an Blevins, R D 1979. Formulas for Natural Frequency and
mum deflections, thus obviating the neces- unbalanced rotating machine. The results Mode Shape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
sity to perform computationally intensive show that the transient deflection can be Chopra, A K 1995. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
transient analyses. an order of magnitude greater than the Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Englewood
Assuming the same ramp slope, the steady-state response. Bracing the portal Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice Hall.
responses of the structure to startup versus structure significantly stiffens the structure Elvin, A & Elvin, N 2012. Structural response to startup
shutdown are similar but not exactly the and increases its natural frequency. However, of rotating machinery. Proceedings, Conference
same, as can be seen from the normalised both the maximum steady-state and tran- on Structures for Mining and Related Materials
graphs (Figures 6 versus 7). Ignoring the sient deflections also increased. The steady- Handling, SMMH2012, hosted by the SAISC,
transient response during machine startup/ state response increased since the braced Section 6.3.2, pp 105–114.
shutdown can greatly under-predict the structure’s resonant frequency was closer Regulatory Guide 1.61: Damping Values for Seismic
dynamic response of low-tuned structures, to the operating frequency of the machine. Design of Nuclear Power Plants. 2007. US Nuclear
even though the logic behind ignoring the The maximal startup deflection increased Regulatory Commission, March.
transient response is that the structure is since the structure took more cycles to Silva, P & Badie, S 2008. Optimum beam-to-column
only subject to resonant-frequency forcing reach its resonance. One potential method stiffness ratio of portal frames under lateral loads.
load for a short duration. On the other hand, of decreasing the deflection during startup Available at: http://www.structuremag.org/article.
this paper has shown that the conservative is to high-tune the structure but this might aspx?articleID=736#ArticlePDF
practice of assuming full resonant behaviour require a very stiff structure, which might Tse, F S, Morse I E & Hinkle R T 1963. Mechanical
in lieu of the actual transient response not be practical or economical. Vibrations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.
can significantly over-predict maximum Future work will concentrate on experi- Wach, P 2011. Dynamics and Control of Electrical
displacements, and hence stresses. The mental validation of the results presented in Drives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
transient response is a function of both the this paper. Different startup and shutdown Weaver, W & Johnston, R P 1987. Structural Dynamics
motor ramp-up (or -down) speeds, as well profiles should also be investigated. The by Finite Elements. Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall
as the damping of the structure. In general effect of startup and shutdown transients International Series in Civil Engineering and
both increasing the damping and increasing should be studied in the case when the oper- Engineering Mechanics.
the ramp-up speed decrease the transient ating frequency of the rotating machine is
deflections. However, damping has a signifi- greater than higher structural resonances.
cantly greater effect in limiting the overall
structural response at slower speeds than at
faster ramp-up speeds. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A rough estimate of the maximal tran- The authors would like to thank the
sient response of the system during startup Southern African Institute of Steel
has been derived in this paper (Equation Construction for funding this work. Matomo
(15)). This estimate was shown to under- (Pty) Ltd is also thanked for allowing the use
estimate the maximum transient response of their acceleration data.
46 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering • Volume 57 Number 1 March 2015