Nonlinear Time Transient Stability Analysis of Rotors

Mounted on Gas Foil Bearings (GFBs)

Thesis Submitted for the Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of

Master of Technology

by

Fapal Anand Mohan

(Roll No. 08410305)

Under the Guidance

Of

Dr. S. K. Kakoty

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI

ABSTRACT

Gas foil bearings (GFB) have been considered as an alternative to the traditional gas bearings
with the increasing need for high-speed, high temperature turbo-machinery. However,
predictions of performance characteristics of GFBs are found to be not exhaustive. Therefore, an
attempt has been made to study steady state as well as dynamic characteristics of GFBs in the
present work. Simple model considering only deflection of bump foils and 1D finite element
model considering deflection of bump as well as top foil has been developed. Reynolds equation
for hydrodynamic lubrication has been solved by finite difference scheme with successive overrelaxation technique. With the help of developed models for foil deflection, nonlinear time
transient stability analysis of rigid rotors supported on GFBs has been carried out, besides
finding out the steady-state characteristics such as load carrying capacity, minimum film
thickness and attitude angle. The steady state results are compared with the experimental and
theoretical results available in literature. An attempt has been made to evaluate the critical mass
parameter (a measure of stability and a function of speed) for various values of eccentricity ratios
and bearing numbers. Equations of motion of rigid rotor are solved by using fourth order RungeKutta method and trajectories of journal centre are obtained to determine critical mass parameter.
Stability maps are plotted for various values of eccentricity ratios and bearing numbers. It has
been observed that the GFBs are more stable than conventional plain gas bearings at lower
eccentricity ratios vis-a-vis for lightly loaded bearings.

ii

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in the thesis entitled "Nonlinear Time Transient Stability
Analysis of Rotors Mounted on Gas Foil Bearings (GFBs)", by Fapal Anand Mohan, a
student of the Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
India, has been carried out under my supervision for the award of the degree Master of
Technology and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for a award of degree.

Dr. S. K. Kakoty
Professor,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati.
July 2010.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my honourable guide, Dr. S.K.
Kakoty, for his valuable guidance, support and constant encouragement during this work, his
support at every stage proved very helpful in successful completion of this work.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. D. Chakraborty, Head of the Mechanical
Engineering Departmernt, IIT Guwahati and the staff of the department for providing the needful
facilities in this work.

Also thanks to all my fellow M.Tech friends for their support and good company, especially to
Sudarshan Kumar for helpful discussions during this project work.

I am indebted a lot to my parents for their whole hearted moral support and constant
encouragement towards the fulfilment of the degree and throughout my life.

July 2010

Fapal Anand Mohan

IIT Guwahati

iv

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii
Contents .................................................................................................................................... v
Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................... viii
List of figures ........................................................................................................................... xi
List of tables ......................................................................................................................... xiii

1. Introduction and literature review ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction to rotor bearing system ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Stability analysis ............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Gas foil bearing .............................................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Advantages of GFB ................................................................................................ 3
1.3.2 Usage of GFBs ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Scope of the present work ............................................................................................... 9

2. Bump type GFB and formulation of the problem ............................................................. 10

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Description of bump type GFB ..................................................................................... 10
2.3 Basic Equations ............................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Finite difference scheme ............................................................................................... 12
2.5 Static analysis ............................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Dynamic analysis: Stability analysis ............................................................................. 15
2.6.1 Equations of motion of a rigid rotor on plain journal bearings .............................. 15

2.6.2 Implementation of Runge-Kutta method to the equations of motion ..................... 17

2.7 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 19

3. Simple elastic foundation model for foil structure ............................................................ 20

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Simple elastic foundation model .................................................................................. 20
3.3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Static performance analysis ................................................................................. 21
3.3.1.1 Comparison with published theoretical results ....................................... 21
3.3.1.2 Comparison with published experimental results ................................... 22
3.3.1.3 Pressure distribution, Film thickness and Top foil deflection ................. 24
3.3.2 Nonlinear stability analysis .................................................................................. 26
3.3.2.1 Effect of eccentricity ratio on mass parameter ........................................ 27
3.3.2.2 Effect of Bearing number on mass parameter ............................................ 27
3.3.2.3 Effect of compliance coefficient on mass parameter .................................. 27
3.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 28

4 1D FE model for foil structure ............................................................................................ 29

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 29
4.2 1D FE model for top foil ............................................................................................. 29
4.3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 30
4.3.1 Comparison with published experimental results .................................................. 30
4.3.2 Nonlinear stability analysis .................................................................................. 32
4.3.2.1 Effect of eccentricity ratio on mass parameter ........................................ 33
4.3.2.2 Effect of bearing number on mass parameter ......................................... 33
4.4 summary ...................................................................................................................... 34
vi

5. Conclusions and Future work ............................................................................................ 35

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2.1 Static performance analysis .................................................................................. 36
5.2.2 Nonlinear stability analysis .................................................................................. 37
5.3 Scope of Future Work ..................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 41
References................................................................................................................................ 42

vii

NOMENCLATURE

Bearing radial clearance (m)

Top foil structural coefficient: C

D
e

Diameter of journal (m)

Eb

Youngs modulus for bump foil ( N/m )

Et

Youngs modulus for top foil ( N/m )

FX , FY

Vertical and horizontal components of hydrodynamic forces (N)

FX , FY

Non-dimensional vertical and horizontal components of hydrodynamic forces :

Et I t c
R 4 Lpa

Bearing eccentricity (m)

2

FX
,
pa R 2

FY
pa R 2

FX 0 , FY 0

vertical and horizontal steady state components of hydrodynamic forces (N)

FX 0 , FY 0

Non-dimensional vertical and horizontal steady state components of hydrodynamic forces :

FX 0
F
, Y 02
2
pa R pa R

F , F

Hydrodynamic forces in , co-ordinate system (N)

F , F

Non-dimensional hydrodynamic forces in , co-ordinate system :

Film thickness (m)

he

Elemental length in FE formulation

hmin

Minimum film thickness (m)

Non-dimensional minimum film thickness

H min

Non-dimensional minimum film thickness

i, j

Grid location in circumferential and axial directions of FDM mesh

viii

F
F
,
2
pa R pa R 2

Ib

Second moment of area of bump foil ( m 4 )

It

Second moment of area of top foil ( m 4 )

Kf

Bump foil structural stiffness per unit area ( N/m3 )

l0

Half bump length (m)

L
m

Bearing length (m)

Mass of the rotor per bearing (Kg)

Number of divisions along j direction of FDM mesh

Non-dimensional mass of the rotor per bearing :

Mc 2
W

Number of divisions along j direction of FDM mesh

Center of bearing

O'

Center of journal

Hydrodynamic pressure in gas film ( N/m2 )

pa

Atmospheric pressure ( N/m2 )

Arithmetic mean pressure along bearing length ( N/m2 )

Non-dimensional hydrodynamic pressure

Non-dimensional arithmetic mean pressure along bearing length

R
s

Radius of journal (m)

Bump foil pitch (m)

pa
cK f

Compliance coefficient of bump foil :

Time (s)

tb

Bump foil thickness (m)

tt

Top foil thickness (m)

wt

Top foil transverse deflection (m)

Non-dimensional top foil transverse deflection

W0

Steady state load carrying capacity (N)

W0

Non-dimensional steady state load carrying capacity

x, y, z

Coordinate system on the plane of bearing

ix

Non-dimensional axial coordinate of bearing :

Compliance of the bump foil ( m3 /N ) :

1
Kf

Eccentricity ratio

6 R
Bearing number :

pa c

Gas viscosity ( N-s/m2 )

Attitude angle (rad)

Angular coordinate of bearing (rad) : x / R

Poissons ratio

Time step in Runge-Kutta method

, Z

Non-dimensional mesh size of FDM mesh

Non-dimensional time : t
Rotor angular velocity ( rad/s )

z
R

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Schematic views of two typical GFBs ..................................................................... 3

Figure 2.1: Schematic view of bump type GFB ....................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2: A developed view of a bearing showing the mesh size ( ) .......................... 13
Figure 2.3: Rotor-Bearing configuration ................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4: Plain circular journal bearing .................................................................................. 16
Figure 3.1: Foil structure .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2: Minimum film thickness Vs static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm ......................... 23
Figure 3.3: Minimum film thickness Vs static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm ........................ 23
Figure 3.4: Journal attitude angle Vs static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm .............................. 24
Figure 3.5: Journal attitude angle Vs static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm ............................. 24
Figure 3.6: Pressure distribution ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.7: Top foil deflection ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.8: Film thickness ......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.9: Stable (L/D=1, =0.4, S=1, =2, M =9) ................................................................. 26
Figure 3.10: Critically stable (L/D=1, =0.4, S=1, =2, M =20.9) ............................................ 26
Figure 3.11: Unstable (L/D=1, =0.4, S=1, =2,

=30).......................................................... 26

Figure 3.12: Effect of eccentricity ratio on critical mass parameter for L/D=1,

=1. ............... 28

Figure 3.13: Effect of bearing number and compliance coefficient on critical mass parameter for
L/D=1, =0.3. ......................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.1: 1D structural model of top foil ................................................................................ 29
Figure 4.2: Minimum film thickness versus static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm .................. 31
Figure 4.3: Minimum film thickness versus static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm .................... 31
Figure 4.4: Journal attitude angle versus static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm ......................... 31
xi

Figure 4.5: Journal attitude angle versus static Load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm....................... 31
Figure 4.6: Stable ( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =15) .................................................... 32
Figure 4.7: Critically stable ( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =25.2) .................................. 32
Figure 4.8: Unstable ( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =35) ................................................. 32
Figure 4.9: Effect of eccentricity ratio on mass parameter for L/D=1,

=1

.............................. 33

Figure 4.10: Effect of bearing number on mass parameter for L/D=1, =0.3 ............................. 33
Figure 5.1: Minimum film thickness versus static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm .................... 37
Figure 5.2: Journal attitude angle versus static load for shaft speed 45,000 ................................ 37
Figure 5.3: Minimum film thickness versus static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm .................... 37
Figure 5.4: Journal attitude angle versus static load for shaft speed 30,000 ................................ 37
Figure 5.5: Critical mass parameter versus eccentricity ratio (L/D=1,

=1). ............................. 38

Figure 5.6: Critical mass parameter versus bearing number (L/D=1, =0.3). ............................ 38

xii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Steady state characteristics for L/D=1.0, S=0 ............................................................. 1
Table 3.2: Steady state characteristics for L/D=1.0, =1.0 .......................................................... 2
Table 3.3: Geometry and operating conditions of GFB in Ruscitto et al. [12] ............................. 3

xiii

CHAPTER 1
Introduction and literature review
1.1 Introduction to rotor bearing system
Rotor bearing systems are widely used assemblies in diverse engineering applications such as
power stations, marine propulsion systems, automobiles, aircraft engines etc. Power
machinery, such as compressors and turbo machines, usually transmit power by means of
rotor bearing systems. With the increase in performance requirements of high speed rotating
machineries in various fields, the engineer is faced with the problem of designing a unit
capable of smooth operation under various conditions of speed and load. In many of these
applications the design operating speed is well beyond the first critical speed. The design
trend of such systems in modern engineering is towards lower weight and operating at higher
speeds. Under these circumstances, for different machineries, it is difficult to perform with
stable low level amplitude of vibration; therefore accurate prediction of dynamic
characteristics of such systems is important in the design of any type of rotating machinery.
A rotor of a rotating machine is a very important element in power transmission. It is
of intricate design and may have various elements such as gears or turbine wheels. In many
applications it is supported by bearings that are not passive and contribute to critical speeds
and stability. When the bearings are operating at high speeds, there is possibility of whirl
instability; this limits the operating speed of the journal. Therefore, it is important to know
the speed above which the bearing system will be unstable.

1.2 Stability analysis

The stability analysis can be done in any one of the following ways

Linearized stability analysis.

Non-linear transient analysis.

In the first method of stability analysis, a small perturbation of the journal center
about the line of centers and its perpendicular direction from the equilibrium position are
given. Eight stiffness and damping coefficients are estimated from the resulting differential
equations and these coefficients are used to determine the mass parameter (a measure of

stability) with the help of the equations of motion of the rotor, the critical mass represents the
minimum mass of the rotor, which leads to a stable behaviour of the bearing. The linear
theory does not give any information on the journal motion once the instability sets in. This
theory does not provide post whirl orbit details. Although linear analysis for the estimation of
dynamic coefficients and stability analysis is relatively easy to apply, it is sometimes
criticized because it utilizes linearized film coefficients, which are only valid for small
displacements of the journal away from its initial static equilibrium position. Since oil whirl
implies large amplitude vibration, it may be argued that any analysis based upon an
assumption of small vibration amplitudes is invalid. For this reason, where resources permit,
a different approach to oil-whirl instability analysis, which does not assume a linear film, is
preferred. The non-linear transient analysis, however, removes theses shortcomings.

1.3 Gas foil bearing

In order to reach high rotation speeds in turbo machinery, gas bearings are widely used due to
low viscosity of their lubricant. Despite this significant advantage, low viscosity leads to
smaller load and damping capacity. Gas foil bearing (GFB) appeared to overcome these
limitations. GFBs fulfill most of the requirements of novel oil-free high speed turbo
machinery by increasing their reliability in comparison to rolling elements bearings [1].
GFBs are made of one or more compliant surfaces of corrugated metal and one or more
layers of top foil surfaces. The compliant surface, providing structural stiffness, comes in
several configurations such as bump-type, leaf-type and tape-type. GFBs operate with
nominal film thicknesses larger than those found in a geometrically identical plain gas
bearing, since the hydrodynamic film pressure generated by rotor spinning pushes the GFB
compliant surface [2,3]. Fig. 1.1 depicts two typical GFB configurations; one is a multipleleaf type bearing and the other is a corrugated-bump strip type bearing. The published
literature notes that multiple leaf GFBs are not the best of supports in high performance
turbo machinery, primarily because of their inherently low load capacity[4], on the other
hand a corrugated bump type GFB fulfills most of the requirements of highly efficient oil free
turbo machinery [5,6].

Top foil
Bump foil

Leaf foil

Rotor spinning
Housing

(a) Multiple Leaf GFB

(b) Corrugated Bump GFB

Figure 1.1: Schematic views of two typical GFBs

1.3.1 Advantages of GFB

The use of GFBs in turbo machinery has several advantages as outlined below

Higher reliability GFB machines are more reliable because there is no lubrication
needed to feed the system.

When the machine is in operation, the air/gas film

between the bearing and the shaft protects the bearing foils from wear. The bearing
surface is in contact with the shaft only when the machine starts and stops. During this
time, a coating on the foils limits the wear.

No scheduled maintenance - since there is no oil lubrication system in machines that

use GFB, checking and replacing of lubricant is not needed. This results in lower
operating costs.

Soft failure - Because of the low clearances and tolerances inherent in GFB design
and assembly, if a bearing failure does occur, the bearing foils restrain the shaft
assembly from excessive movement. As a result, the damage is most often confined
to the bearings and shaft surfaces. The shaft may be used as it is or can be repaired.
Damage to the other hardware, if any, is minimal and repairable during overhaul.

High speed operation - Compressor and turbine rotors have better aerodynamic
3

efficiency at higher speeds. GFBs allow these machines to operate at the higher
speeds without any limitation as with ball bearings. In fact, due to the hydrodynamic
action, they have a higher load capacity as the speed increases.

Low and high temperature capabilities - Many oil lubricants cannot operate at very
high temperatures without breaking down. At low temperature, oil lubricants can
become too viscous to operate effectively. GFBs, however, operate efficiently at
severely high temperatures, as well as at cryogenic temperatures.

Process fluid operations - Foil bearings have been operated in process fluids other
than air such as helium, xenon, refrigerants, liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen. For
applications in vapor cycles, the refrigerant can be used to cool and support the foil
bearings without the need for oil lubricants that can contaminate the system and
reduce efficiency.

1.3.2 Usage of GFBs

GFBs are currently used in several commercial applications, both terrestrial and aerospace.
Aircraft air cycle machines (ACMs), auxiliary power units (APUs) and ground-based
microturbines have demonstrated histories of successful long-term operation using GFBs [1].
For over three decades GFBs have been successfully applied in ACMs used for aircraft cabin
pressurization.

These turbomachines utilize gas foil bearings along with conventional

polymer solid lubricant [7]. Based on the technical and commercial success of ACMs; oilfree technology moves into gas turbine engines. The first commercially available oil-free gas
turbine was the 30 kW Capstone microturbine conceived as a power plant for hybrid turbine
electric automotive propulsion system [7]. Industrial blowers and compressors are becoming
more common as well. In addition, small aircraft propulsion engines, helicopter gas turbines,
and high speed electric motors are potential future applications.

1.4 Literature review

An extensive part of the literature on GFBs relates to their structural characteristics, namely
structural stiffness, dry friction coefficient and equivalent viscous damping. The compliant
structural elements in GFBs constitute the most significant aspect on their design process.

With proper selection of foil and bump materials and geometrical parameters, the desired
stiffness, damping and friction forces can be achieved.

Heshmat et al. [2] first present

analysis of bump type GFBs and details of the bearings static load performance. The
predictive model couples the gas film hydrodynamic pressure generation to a local deflection
(wt) of the support bumps. In this simplest of all models, the top foil is altogether neglected
and the elastic displacement, wt ( p pa ) is proportional to the local pressure difference

( p pa ) through a structural compliance () which depends on the bump material, thickness

and geometric configuration. This model is hereby named as the simple elastic foundation
model.

Ku and Heshmat [8] first develop a theoretical model of the corrugated foil strip
deformation used in foil bearings. The model introduces friction force between the bump
foils and the bearing housing or top foil, and the effect of bump geometry on the foil strip
compliance. Theoretical results indicate that bumps located at the fixed end of a foil strip
provide higher stiffness than those located at its free end. Higher friction coefficients tend to
increase bump stiffness and may lock-up bumps near the fixed end. Similarly, the bump
thickness has a small effect on the local bump stiffness, but reducing the bump pitch or height
significantly increases the local bump stiffness.

In a follow-up paper, Ku and Heshmat [9] present an experimental procedure to

investigate the foil strip deflection under static loads. Identified bump stiffnesses in terms of
bump geometrical parameters and friction coefficients support the theoretical results
presented in [8]. Through an optical track system, bump deflection images are captured
indicating that the horizontal deflection of the segment between bumps is negligible
compared to the transversal deflection of the bumps. The identification of bump strip
stiffness, from the load-versus-deflection curves, indicates that the existence of friction forces
between the sliding surfaces causes the local stiffness to be dependent on the applied load and
deformation.

Rubio and San Andrs [10] further developed the structural stiffness dependency on
applied load and displacement. An experimental and analytical procedure aimed to identify
the structural stiffness for an entire bump-type foil bearing. A simple static loader set up
allows observing the GFB deflections under various static loads. Three shafts of increasing
5

diameter induce a degree of preload into the GFB structure. Static measurements showed
nonlinear GFB deflections, varying with the orientation of the load relative to the foil spot
weld. The GFB structural stiffness increases as the bumps-foil radial deflection increases
(hardening effect). The assembly preload results in notable stiffness changes, in particular for
small loads. A simple analytical model assembles individual bump stiffnesses and renders
predictions for the GFB structural stiffness as a function of the bump geometry and material,
dry-friction coefficient, load orientation, clearance and preload. The model predicts well the
test data, including the hardening effect. The uncertainty in the actual clearance upon
assembly of a shaft into a GFB affects most the predictions.

Lee et al. [11] introduce a viscoelastic material to enhance the damping capacity of
GFBs. The rotordynamic characteristics of a conventional GFB and a viscoelastic foil bearing
are compared in a rotor operating beyond the bending-critical speed. Experimental results for
the vibration orbit amplitudes show a considerably reduction at the critical speed by using the
viscoelastic foil bearing. Furthermore, the increased damping capability due to the
viscoelasticity allows the suppression of nonsynchronous motion for operation beyond the
bending critical speed. In term of structural dynamic stiffness, the viscoelastic GFBs provide
similar dynamic stiffness magnitudes in comparison to the conventional foil bearings.

Ruscitto et al. [12] perform a series of load capacity tests of bump type GFBs. The
test bearing, 38 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length, has a single top foil and a single bump
strip layer. The authors note that the actual bearing clearance for the test bearing is unknown.
Thus, the journal radial travel was estimated by performing a static load-bump deflection
test. The authors installed displacement sensors inside the rotor and measure the gap between
the rotor and the top foil at the bearings center plane and near the bearing edge. As the static
load increases, for a fixed rotational speed, the minimum film thickness and journal attitude
angle decrease exponentially. The test data for film thickness is the only one available in the
open literature.

Lee et al. [13] performed the static performance analysis of GFBs considering threedimensional shape of the foil structure. Using this model, the deflections of interconnected
bumps are compared to those of separated bumps, and the minimum film thickness is
compared to those of previous models. In addition, the effects of the top foil and bump foil
thickness on the foil bearing static performance are evaluated. The results of the study show
6

that the three-dimensional shape of the foil structure should be considered for accurate
predictions of GFB performances and that too thin top foil or bump foil thickness may lead to
a significant decrease in the load capacity. In addition, the foil stiffness variation does not
increase the load capacity much under a simple foil structure.

Lez et al. [14] studied nonlinear numerical prediction of GFB Stability and
unbalanced response. The stability analysis has evidenced that the structural deflection itself
renders the bearing much more stable than a rigid bearing of same initial clearance. The
introduction of dry friction then allows doubling this stability gain. The unbalanced responses
show a nonlinear step when the unbalanced load exceeds a certain limit. This jump can lead
to the contact between the shaft and the top foil and hence can lead to the destruction of the
system. It evidenced that the foil bearing can support higher mass unbalance before this
undesirable step occurs.

Iordanoff et al. [15] considered Effect of internal friction in the dynamic behavior of
aerodynamic GFBs. A non-linear model, coupling a simplified equation for the rotor motion
to both Reynolds equation and foil assembly model is described. Then the dynamic behavior,
for a given unbalance is studied. For different values of friction coefficient, the rotor
trajectory is studied, when velocity is increased. For low and high friction coefficient, the
dynamic behavior shows critical speeds. For medium values (between 0.2 and 0.4), these
critical speeds disappear. This work outlines that it is possible to optimize the friction
between the foils in order to greatly improve the dynamic behavior of foil bearings.

Lee and Park [16] studied operating characteristics of the bump GFBs considering top
foil bending phenomenon and correlation among bump foils. This analysis verifies that the
stiffness at the fixed end where the friction forces between the bearing housing and bump foil
superpose is more than that at the free end.

Kim and San Andres [17], in comparisons with test data [12] validate a GFB model
that implements the simple elastic foundation model with formulas for bump stiffnesses taken
from [18]. Predicted journal eccentricities versus static load show a nearly constant static
stiffness coefficient for heavily loaded conditions and independent of shaft speed. Predictions
of minimum film thickness and journal attitude angle show excellent agreement with
experimental data.
7

Kim and San Andres [19] did analysis of GFBs integrating 1D and 2D FE top foil
models. 2D FE model predictions overestimate the minimum film thickness at the bearing
centerline, but slightly underestimate it at the bearing edges. Predictions from the 1D FE
model compare best to the limited tests data, reproducing closely the experimental
circumferential profile of minimum film thickness.
Kim and San Andres [20] studied forced nonlinear response of rigid rotors supported
on GFBs. Predicted rotor amplitudes replicate accurately the measured responses, with a
main whirl frequency locked at the system natural frequency. The predictions and
measurements validate the simple GFB model, with applicability to large amplitude rotor
dynamic motions.

Xiong et al, [21] developed aerodynamic foil journal bearings for a high speed
cryogenic turbo-expander; they found that foil stiffness plays an important role in the
dynamic performance of this new type of foil journal bearing.

Majumder and Majumdar [22] studied theoretical investigation of stability using a

non-linear transient method for an externally pressurized porous gas journal bearing.

Yang et al. [23] studied the non-linear stability of finite length self-acting gas journal
bearings by solving a time- dependent Reynolds equation using finite difference method.
Two threshold values are discovered instead of one through which the self-acting gas journal
bearings are changed from stable to unstable state.

GFBs require solid lubrication (coatings) to prevent wear and reduce friction at startup and shut-down prior to the development of the hydrodynamic gas film. Earlier
investigations have revealed that with proper selection of solid lubricants the bearing
rotordynamic performance can be significantly improved. Della Corte et al. [24] present an
experimental procedure to evaluate the effects of solid lubricants applied to the shaft and top
foil surface on the load capacity of GFBs.

1.5 Scope of the present work

In view of the above discussion on available literature, it has been observed that very little
work has been done with regards to GFBs; therefore it has been proposed to study dynamic
and stability characteristics along with steady state characteristics of GFBs.
Besides it has been observed that in stability analysis, mostly linear approach is used,
therefore an attempt has been made to study nonlinear time transient stability analysis with
simple model considering deflection of bump foils only and another model considering
deflection of bump as well as top foil.

CHAPTER 2
Bump type GFB and formulation of the problem
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, general description of bump type GFB and the equations which govern the
rotor bearing system is given and solution schemes used for their solution are discussed.
Equations of motions of rigid rotor on plain journal bearing used for nonlinear time transient
stability analysis are derived.

2.2 Description of bump type GFB

Bump foil
Top foil

e
O

Figure 2.1: Schematic view of bump type GFB

Figure 2.1 shows the configuration of a typical bump type GFB. The GFB consists of a thin
(top) foil and a series of corrugated bump strip supports (bump foil). The leading edge of the
thin foil is free, and the foil trailing edge is welded to the bearing housing. Beneath the top
foil, a bump structure is laid on the inner surface of the bearing. The top foil of smooth
surface is supported by a series of bumps acting as springs, thus making the bearing
compliant. The bump strip provides a tunable structural stiffness [2].
10

The bump foil layer gives the bearing flexibility that allows it to tolerate significant
amount of misalignment, and distortion that would otherwise cause a rigid bearing to fail. In
addition, micro-sliding between the top foil and bump foil and the bump foil and the housing
generates Coulomb damping which can increase the dynamic stability of the rotor-bearing
system [6]. The bearing stiffness combines that resulting from the deflection of the bumps
and also by the hydrodynamic film generated when the shaft rotates. During normal operation
GFB supported machine, the rotation of the rotor generates a pressurized gas film that
pushes the top foil out in radial direction and separates the top foil from the surface of the
rotating shaft. The pressure in the gas film is proportional to the relative surface velocity
between the rotor and the GFB top foil. Thus, the faster the rotor rotates, the higher the
pressure, and the more load the bearing can support. When the rotor first begins to rotate, the
top foil and the rotor surface are in contact until the speed increases to a point where the
pressure in the gas film is sufficient to push the top foil away from the rotor and support its
weight. Likewise, when the rotor slows down to a point where the speed is insufficient to
support the rotor weight, the top foil and rotor again come in contact. Therefore, during startup and shut down, a solid lubricant coating is used, either on the shaft surface or the foil, to
reduce wear and friction [21].

2.3 Basic Equations

Bearing studied here is a bump type GFB. The Reynolds equation describes the generation of
the gas hydrodynamic pressure (p) within the film thickness (h). For an isothermal,
isoviscous ideal gas this equation is given by [25],
3 p 3 p
( ph)
( ph)
12
ph
ph
6 R
x
x z
z
x
t

(2.1)

with film thickness

h c e cos( ) wt

(2.2)

boundary conditions required for the solution of Eqn. 2.1 are

p=pa

at

= 0 and 2

p=pa

at

z = 0 and L

11

By using the substitutions

p
w
e
x
z
h

, , , Z , H , W t,t
pa
c
R
c
c

non-dimensionl Reynolds equation is given by,

( PH )
( PH )
3 P
3 P
2
PH

PH

Z
Z

(2.3)

For steady state condition this equation reduces to

( PH )
3 P
3 P
PH

PH

Z
Z

(2.4)

where is Bearing number given by,

6 R

pa c

(2.5)

Non dimensional film thickness H becomes

H 1 cos( ) W

(2.6)

Boundary conditions required for solution of Eqn. 2.3 are

P=1

at = 0 and 2

P=1

at Z = 0 and L/R

where and Z are the circumferential and axial coordinates in the plane of the
bearing respectively.

2.4 Finite difference scheme

Equation 2.3 is difficult to solve analytically, various approximation methods are employed
for the solution. However, there are numerical solution schemes, finite element method and
finite difference methods, which provide results in close proximity with the experimental
findings. In the present approach finite difference method has been used.
Equation 2.3 is solved numerically by FDM with central differences. A developed
view of bearing is shown in Fig. 2.2. The area is divided into a number of meshes of size

Z . A mesh of m nodes along circumferential direction and n nodes along axial

direction is created.

12

Z, j

Pi , j 1
Pi 1, j

Pi , j

Pi 1, j

Pi , j 1

,i

(0, 0)

Figure 2.2: A developed view of a bearing showing the mesh size ( )

Where, Pi , j is the pressure at any point (i,j).

H i is the film thickness at any point (i,j).

Pi 1, j , Pi 1, j , Pi , j 1 , Pi , j 1 are pressures at four adjacent points of Pi , j .

Now using central differences,

Eqn. 2.3 for dynamic state simplifies to,

P
i, j

K1 Pi , j ( K2 K 4 ) ( K3 K5 ) 0

(2.7)

Eqn. 2.4 for steady state simplifies to,

P
i, j

K1 Pi , j K2 K3 0

(2.8)

Where K1 , K 2 , K 3 , K 4 and K 5 are given in Appendix A.

Eqns. 2.7 and 2.8 are nonlinear systems of the form

F ( P) 0

(2.9)

Newton-Raphson method has been employed for their solution,

Pn 1 Pn

F Pn
F ' Pn

(2.10)

13

Where Pn is pressure obtained after nth iteration and F '( P) is first derivative of F ( P)
with respect to P.
To start with Newton-Raphson method, initially pressures and foil deflections at all
the mesh points are assumed and Eqn. 2.10 is solved for all the mesh points. Once the
pressure distribution is obtained, foil deflections are calculated by the GFB deflection model
considered using appropriate equation then new film thickness H is updated using Eqn. 2.6
and the new pressure distribution is estimated by solving Eqn. 2.10 and so on.
For low eccentricities, first iteration is carried out assuming foil deflection equal to
zero and the non-dimensional pressure field equal to unity and the Newton-Raphson method
has no convergence problem. For higher eccentricities, a first calculation has to be made with
lower eccentricities, then pressures and foil deflections obtained are taken as first iteration
values for higher eccentricities and so on.
As the pressures are assumed in the beginning, Eqns. 2.7 and 2.8 are not satisfied. The
iterative process is repeated until the following convergence criterion is satisfied.
Pi , j

n 1

Pi , j

Pi , j

106

(2.11)

2.5 Static analysis

To obtain steady state characteristics of GFB, it is required to obtain pressure distribution by
solving Eqn. 2.7. Once pressure is obtained, steady state characteristics of GFB can be
dtermined. Non-dimensional horizontal and vertical steady state load components can be
obtained by following equations.

FX 0

L/ D

L/ D 0

FY 0

L/ D

L/ D 0

P cos d dZ

P sin d dZ

(2.12)
(2.13)

Finally total non-dimensional steady state load is obtained by,

W0 FX20 FY20

(2.14)

To obtain attitude angle for a chosen value of eccentricity ratio, initially attitude angle
is assumed and load components are determined. For steady state equilibrium, horizontal load

14

component should become zero theoretically, though in actual numerical solution it is not
exactly zero but negligible with respect to vertical load. For given eccentricity ratio, assumed
attitude angle is varied till horizontal load component approximately becomes zero. Finally,
we get load capacity and attitude angle.

2.6 Dynamic analysis: Stability analysis

An attempt is being made here to determine the mass parameter (a measure of stability) of
GFBs with the help of solution of dynamic Reynolds equation and the equations of motion of
the rigid rotor under the unidirectional load at every time step. A non-linear time transient
method is used to simulate the journal center trajectory and thereby to estimate the mass
parameter which is a function of speed.

2.6.1 Equations of motion of a rigid rotor on plain journal bearings

Consider a symmetric rigid disc of mass 2M, and supporting a static load 2W0 along X-axis as
shown in Fig. 2.3. The disc is mounted on two identical plain cylindrical hydrodynamic
journal bearings.
Above rotor-bearing system may be fully described for nonlinear transient simulation
of GFB by the coordinate system shown in Fig. 2.3. Where x(t) and y(t) are the co-ordinates
of the rotor mass centre, and FX, FY are the fluid film bearing reaction forces. Since the rotor
is rigid, the centre of mass displacements is identical to those of the journal centre.

Disc
Bearing

2M

Shaft

2W 0
Figure 2.3: Rotor-Bearing configuration
15

Journal

Bearing

h
O

O'

FY

X
FX

Figure 2.4: Plain circular journal bearing

The equations of motion of the rotating system at constant rotational speed are
given by,

Mx FX W0

(2.15)

FY
My

(2.16)

Displacements of rotor centre along x and y directions in terms of e and are given
by,
x(t ) e(t ) cos (t )

(2.17)

y(t ) e(t )sin (t )

(2.18)

Fluid film bearing reaction forces in terms of e and are given by

FX F cos F sin

(2.19)

FY F sin F cos

(2.20)

Substituting the values of x(t), y(t), FX and FY in Eqns. 2.15 and 2.16 we get,

16

M 2e Me 22 F W0 cos 0

(2.21)

Me 2 2M 2e F W0 sin 0

(2.22)

By using the substitution,

e
c

we get the non-dimensional equations of motion in the following form

2
MW0 F W0 cos

(2.23)

F W0 sin
MW0 2

(2.24)

where

F
Mc 2
F
W
M
, W0 0 2 , F 2 , F
W
pa R 2
pa R
pa R

Reynolds equation for dynamic state 2.3 and equations of motion 2.23 and 2.24 are
solved successively at every time step for obtaining the values of , , and . Once these
values are calculated, the motion trajectories are obtained by plotting the attitude angle and
eccentricity ratio at every time step showing position of journal orbit at various time steps. By
observing these trajectories it can be ascertained whether the rotor system is stable, unstable
or at critical condition. It is observed that at a certain value of mass parameter journal centre
ends in a limit cycle and above that there is transition in rotor motion from stable to unstable
state. The corresponding value of the mass parameter at this transition is known as critical
mass parameter.

2.6.2 Implementation of Runge-Kutta method to the equations of motion

Equations of motion of rigid rotor 2.23 and 2.24 are second order ordinary differential
equations; these equations are solved by using fourth order Runge-Kutta method.
Implementation of fourth order Runge-Kutta method for the solution of these equations is
given as,

17

Step 1: Deducing the second order Eqns. 2.23 and 2.24 into first order equations,

f1

f 2
f3
f 4

F W0 cos
2
MW0
F W0 sin

MW0

Step 3: Calculating the values of k1, k2, k3, k4, l1, l2, l3, l4, m1, m2, m3, m4, n1, n2, n3 and n4 by
using the following expressions,

k1 . f1

m . f , , , , M ,W , F , F
n . f , , , , M ,W , F , F

l1 . f 2
1

k2 . f1 m1
2

l2 . f 2 n1
2

1
1
1
1

m2 . f3 k1 , l1 , m1 , n1 , M ,W0 , F , F
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

n2 . f 4 k1 , l1 , m1 , n1 , M ,W0 , F , F
2
2
2
2

k3 . f1 m2
2

l3 . f3 n2
2

1
1
1
1

m3 . f3 k2 , l2 , m2 , n2 , M ,W0 , F , F
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

n3 . f 4 k2 , l2 , m2 , n2 , M ,W0 , F , F
2
2
2
2

18

k4 . f1 m3

l4 . f 2 n3

k , l , m , n , M ,W , F , F

m4 . f3 k3 , l3 , m3 , n3 , M ,W0 , F , F
n4 . f 4

Step 4: Calculating , , , and with the help of following expressions,

1
k1 2k2 2k3 k4
6

1
l1 2l2 2l3 l4
6

1
m1 2m2 2m3 m4
6

1
n1 2n2 2n3 n4
6

Step 5: Finding the values of , , and for each and every time step with the following
expressions.

i 1 i
i 1 i
i 1 i

i 1 i
Step 6: By plotting the values of and in polar graph, trajectory of journal centre can be
achieved.

2.7 Summary
In this chapter, a general description of bump type gas foil bearing is given. Numerical
solutions of steady state and dynamic Reynolds equation are obtained by using finite
difference method, the nonlinear system of equations obtained by FDM are solved by
Newton-Raphson method. Nonlinear stability analysis is discussed in detail with derivation
of equations of motion of rigid rotor on plain journal bearing; finally Runge-Kutta solution
scheme used for solution of equations of motion has been given.
19

CHAPTER 3
Simple elastic foundation model for foil structure
3.1 Introduction
Compliant foil structure which gives flexibility to GFB can be modeled in several ways from
simple model considering only deflection of bump foils to more complex models considering
deflection of bump as well as top foil. Here, in this chapter simple elastic foundation model
has been considered.

3.2 Simple elastic foundation model

Most published models for the elastic support structure in a GFB are based on the simple
elastic foundation model which is the original work of Heshmat et al. [2], same model is
considered in the present analysis.
Foil structure used in simple elastic foundation model is given in Fig. 3.1

Bump foil

Top foil

tb
2lo

Figure 3.1: Foil structure

This model relies on several assumptions:

1) The stiffness of a bump strip is uniformly distributed throughout the bearing surface,
i.e. the bump strip is regarded as a uniform elastic foundation.
2) Bump stiffness is constant, independent of the actual bump deflection, not related or
constrained by adjacent bumps.
3) The top foil does not sag between adjacent bumps. The top foil does not have either
bending or membrane stiffness, and its deflection follows that of the bump.
4) Film thickness does not vary along the bearing length.
20

With these considerations, the local deflection of the foil structure (wt ) depends on the
bump compliance () and the average pressure across the bearing length,
wt ( p pa )

(3.1)

2l03 (1 2 ) s
Ebtb3

(3.2)

The compliance () is given by,

By using following substitutions

p
w
,W t
pa
c

non-dimensional foil deflection equation is given by

W S ( P 1)

(3.3)

Coupling of the simple model equation for the foil deflection with the solution of
Reynolds equation is straightforward for the prediction of the static and dynamic performance
of GFBs [2,6].

3.3 Results and Discussion

The performance characteristics of GFB have been determined using the analysis described in
the previous chapter with simple elastic foundation model. Here static performance
characteristics and nonlinear time transient stability analysis have been studied.
.

3.3.1 Static performance analysis

3.3.1.1 Comparison with published theoretical results
The validity of the present analysis and computational program is assessed by comparison of
steady state results with published data available in literature.
Table 3.1 compares attitude angle and load capacity with the published results Yang
et al, [23], for L/D=1.0 and S=0. GFB reduces to ordinary gas bearing for S=0.

21

Table 3.1: Steady state characteristics for L/D=1.0, S=0

(ref)

W (ref)

0.6

0.2

79.639

#79.080

0.18.05

#0.1806

0.6

0.4

74.171

#74.020

0.4050

#0.4020

0.6

0.6

61.768

#61.450

0.7540

#0.7555

3.0

0.2

48.020

#47.730

0.7097

#0.6916

3.0

0.4

40.951

#40.690

1.5340

#1.5230

3.0

0.6

30.520

#30.040

2.870

#2.8631

# Yang et al. [23]

Table 3.2 compares attitude angle and load capacity for L/D=1.0 and =1 with the
published results Peng and Carpino [3] and Heshmat et al.[2].
Table 3.2: Steady state characteristics for L/D=1.0, =1.0
S

(ref.1)

(ref.2)

W (ref.1)

W (ref.2)

0.6

35.90

*36.50

#35.70

0.964

*0.961

#0.951

0.75

24.51

*24.70

#24.10

1.926

*1.922

#1.894

0.9

12.69

*12.90

#12.80

5.150

*5.073

#5.055

0.6

35.94

*34.00

#32.10

0.5489

*0.567

#0.568

0.75

29.55

*27.70

#26.30

0.7523

*0.778

#0.783

0.9

24.24

*22.40

#21.40

0.9882

*1.020

#1.020

*Peng and Carpino[3]

# Heshmat et al.[2].

From the above comparisons in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, it has been observed that the
present results are in good agreement with those from references, hence computational model
and present analysis may be considered as valid.

3.3.1.2 Comparison with published experimental results

Minimum film thickness and attitude angle are compared with experimental results available
in Ruscitto et al. [12]. Table 3.3 provides geometry and operating conditions for the test
GFB in Ruscitto et al. [12].

22

Table 3.3: Geometry and operating conditions of GFB in Ruscitto et al. [12]
Geometry
Bearing radius, R=D/2

19.05 mm

Bearing length, L

38.1 mm

Bearing radial clearance, c

20 m

Top foil thickness tt

101.6 m

Bump foil thickness, tb

101.6 m

Bump pitch, s

4.572 mm

Half bump length, l0

1.778 mm

Bump foil Youngs modulus, Eb

214 GPa

Top foil Youngs modulus, Et

214 GPa

Bump foil Poissons ratio,

0.29

Operating conditions
Atmospheric pressure, pa

105 N/ m 2

Gas viscosity,

2.98 105 N-s/ m 2

Minimum film thickness versus applied static load

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 present minimum film thickness versus applied static load for operation
of shaft speeds 45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively. It has been observed that present
results overestimate minimum film thickness by 0% to 26% and 18% to 38% for shaft speeds

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

40

Prediction (simple model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively.

40

Prediction (simple model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)
30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 3.2: Minimum film thickness Vs static load

Figure 3.3: Minimum film thickness Vs static load

for shaft speed 45,000 rpm

for shaft speed 30,000 rpm

23

Attitude angle versus applied static load

Figures 3.4 and 3.5 present attitude angle versus static load for operation of shaft speeds
45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively. It is observed that present results overestimate
attitude angles by 2% to 6% and 29% to 36% for shaft speeds 45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm
respectively.

60

Prediction (simple model)

Test point (Ruscitto,et al.)

50

Journal attitude angle [deg]

Journal attitude angle [deg]

60

40

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Predictions (simple model)

Test point (Ruscitto, et al.)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 3.4: Journal attitude angle Vs static load

Figure 3.5: Journal attitude angle Vs static load

for shaft speed 45,000 rpm

for shaft speed 30,000 rpm

3.3.1.3 Pressure distribution, Film thickness and Top foil deflection

Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 present the non-dimensional pressure distribution, top foil deflection
and film thickness respectively from the proposed model for = 0.6, L/D=1, S=1, =1. The
surface of journal moves from the left to right in the direction of increasing . As shown in
Fig. 3.6, the maximum pressure occurs in the bearing center with pressure becoming ambient
at both sides. Under the action of this pressure, the foil structure is deflected as shown in Fig.
3.7 and corresponding film thickness profile has been shown in Fig. 3.8.
From Fig. 3.6 through Fig. 3.7, it has been observed that maximum value of averaged
non-dimensional pressure is 1.1720 which occurs at 2000 from the fixed end of top foil, at the
same point maximum deflection of top foil takes place and its maximum value is 0.1720.
Non-dimensional minimum film thickness is 0.5450 at 2360 from the fixed end of top foil.

24

1.35
30

330

1.3
1.25
60

300

1.2

P 1.15

1.5

1.1

0.5

90

270

1.05
1
2

120

240

L/R
0

360

150

Circumferential location (theta)

210
180

Figure 3.6: Pressure distribution

0
30

330

0.2

60

0.15

0.2

W 0.1

300

0.15

0.1

0.05

90

270

0.05

0
2

120

240

L/R
0

150

360

210
180

Circumferential location (theta)

Figure 3.7: Top foil deflection

0
330

30

2
1.8
1.6

300

60

1.4
H

1.2

1.5

0.5

270

90

0.8
0.6
0.4
2

240

120

L/R
0

360

Circumferential location (theta)

210

150
180

Figure 3.8: Film thickness

25

3.3.2 Nonlinear stability analysis

The motion trajectories have been obtained by plotting polar graphs showing position of
journal center at various time steps. By observing these trajectories it can be ascertained
whether the rotor system is stable, unstable or at critical condition. It is observed that above a
certain value of mass parameter there is a transition in rotor motion from stable to unstable
state. This value is the critical mass parameter.
As an example polar plots has been given for stable, critical and unstable condition
from Fig. 3.9 through Fig. 3.11 for =0.4, L/D=1, S=1, =2. It has been observed that for

M < 20.9 system is stable and at M =20.9 there is transition in rotor motion from stable to
unstable state, for M >20.9 system is unstable. This value M =20.9 is the critical mass
parameter.
180

180

210

210

150

150

Unit circle
240

Unit circle
240

120

0.2

270

0.4

0.6

300

0.8

0.2

270

90
1

0.4

0.6

300

60

330

120

330

30

Figure 3.9: Stable

Figure 3.10: Critically stable

=0.4, S=1, =2,

M =9)

90
1

60

30

(L/D=1,

0.8

(L/D=1,

=0.4, S=1, =2,

M =20.9)

180
210

150

Unit circle
240

120

0.2

270

0.4

0.6

300

0.8

90
1

60

330

30
0

Figure 3.11: Unstable

(L/D=1,

=0.4, S=1, =2,

M =30)

26

3.3.2.1 Effect of eccentricity ratio on critical mass parameter

In Fig. 3.12, plot of critical mass parameter versus eccentricity ratio is shown for plain gas
bearing, S=0 and GFB, S=1 for L/D=1, =1. It is observed that critical mass parameter
increases with increase in eccentricity ratio for both plain gas bearing and GFB; from this it
appears that bearings operating under highly loaded condition are more stable. Fig. 3.12 also
shows that at low eccentricity ratios GFBs are more stable than same configuration plain gas
bearings, here for L/D=1, =1, up to eccentricity ratio =0.4517 GFB is more stable and
beyond that plain gas bearing has better stability.

3.3.2.2 Effect of bearing number on critical mass parameter

In Fig. 3.13, plot of critical mass parameter versus bearing number is shown for plain gas
bearing, S=0 and GFBs, S=1 and S=2 for L/D=1, =0.3, it is observed that critical mass
parameter increases with increase in bearing number for both plain gas bearing and GFBs.
For higher values of bearing number, critical mass parameter almost remains same in case of
GFBs therefore it appears that plain gas bearings have better stability at higher values of
bearing numbers. Fig. 3.13 also shows that GFBs are more stable than plain gas bearings at
low bearing numbers, here for L/D=1, =0.3, up to bearing numbers =2.34 and =2.28
GFBs with S=1 and S=2 have better stability than plain gas bearing respectively and beyond
that plain gas bearing has better stability.

3.3.2.3 Effect of compliance coefficient on critical mass parameter

In Fig. 3.13, plot of critical mass parameter versus bearing number is shown for plain gas
bearing, S=0 and GFBs, S=1 and S=2 for L/D=1, =0.3, it is observed that increasing
compliance coefficient improves stability up to a certain value of bearing number and beyond
that GFBs with less compliance coefficient have better stability, here for L/D=1, =0.3, up
to bearing numbers =2.34 and =2.28 GFBs with S=1 and S=2 have better stability than
plain gas bearing respectively and beyond that plain gas bearing has better stability. GFB
with S=2 has better stability than GFB with S=1 up to bearing number 2.15 and beyond that
GFB with S=1 is more stable.

27

55

50

Plain gas bearing

GFB (S=1)

40
35
30

Unstable
25
20
15
10

Stable

5
0
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Plain gas bearing

GFB (S=1)
GFB (S=2)

50

Critical mass parameter

Critical mass parameter

45

45
40

Unstable

35
30
25
20

Stable

15

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

10
1

10

Bearing number

Eccentricity ratio

Figure 3.12: Effect of eccentricity ratio on critical

Figure 3.13: Effect of bearing number and

mass parameter for L/D=1, =1.

compliance coefficient on critical mass parameter

for L/D=1,

=0.3.

3.4 Summary
In this chapter, simple elastic foundation model for GFB has been developed and present
steady state results are compared with published theoretical and experimental data. Nonlinear
stability analysis of GFB has also been carried out. Model for GFB considering deflection of
bump as well as top foil has been provided in the next chapter.

28

CHAPTER 4
1D FE model for foil structure
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, compliant foil structure which gives flexibility to GFB has been modeled
considering deflection of bump as well as top foil. Top foil is considered like an EulerBernoulli beam, 1D finite element model has been developed to calculate deflections of foil
structure.

4.2 1D FE model for top foil

The top foil is modeled like an Euler-Bernoulli type beam with elastic support of bump foils
having one end fixed and other end free as shown in Fig. 4.1.

( p pa ) L
Top foil

Fixed end
Kf L

wt

x R
Figure 4.1: 1D structural model of top foil

This model relies on assumptions:

1. The stiffness of a bump strip is uniformly distributed throughout the bearing
surface, i.e. the bump strip is regarded as a uniform elastic foundation.
2. Bump foil stiffness is constant, independent of the actual bump deflection, not
related or constrained by adjacent bumps.
3. Axially averaged pressure causes a uniform elastic deflection along the top foil
width (L).

29

Transverse deflection ( wt ) of top foil is governed by the fourth order differential equation,

d 2 wt
d2
Et I t
K f Lwt ( p pa ) L
dx 2
dx 2

(4.1)

Using following substitutions,

p
x
w
,W t
, P
R
pa
c
Equation 4.1 has been converted to non-dimensional form as,

d 2 d 2W

d 2 d 2

W
( P 1)
S

(4.2)

This equation is solved by finite element method; elemental equation for this type of problem
is given by Reddy [26],

[ K e ]{u e } {F e }

(4.3)

where,

[ K e ] = Elemental stiffness matrix

{u e } = Vector of primary nodal variables or generalized displacements

{F e } = Force vector
[ K e ] , {u e } , {F e } are given in Appendix B.
Elemental equations are assembled as usual and solved to get deflections.

4.3 Results and Discussion

4.3.1 Comparison with published experimental results
Predicated minimum film thickness and attitude angle are compared with experimental data
available in Ruscitto et al. [12]. Table 3.3 provides geometry and operating conditions for
the test GFB in in Ruscitto et al. [12].
30

Minimum film thickness versus applied static load

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 present minimum film thickness versus applied static load for operation
of shaft speeds 45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively. It has been observed that present
results overestimate minimum film thickness by 0% to 26% and 18% to 38% for shaft speeds

40

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively.

Prediction (1D FE model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)
30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

40

Prediction (1D FE model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)
30

20

10

0
0

150

Static load [N]

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 4.2: Minimum film thickness versus

Figure 4.3: Minimum film thickness versus

static load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm

static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm

Attitude angle versus applied static load

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 present attitude angle versus static load for operation of shaft speeds
45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm respectively. It is observed that present results overestimate
attitude angles by 2% to 6% and 29% to 36% for shaft speeds 45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm
respectively.
60

Prediction (1D FE model)

Test point (Ruscitto,et al.)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Journal attitude angle [deg]

Journal attitude angle [deg]

60

Predictions (1D FE model)

Test point (Ruscitto, et al.)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 4.4: Journal attitude angle versus static

Figure 4.5: Journal attitude angle versus static

load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm

Load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm

31

4.3.2 Nonlinear stability analysis

As an example, polar plots have been presented for stable, critical and unstable condition
from Fig. 4.6 through Fig. 4.8 for =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5. It has been observed that
for M < 25.2 system is stable and at M =25.2 there is a transition in rotor motion from stable
to unstable state, for M >25.2 system is unstable. This value M =25.2 is the critical mass
parameter.

180
180

210

150

210

150

Unit circle
240

Unit circle

120

0.2

270

0.4

0.6

300

0.8

240

90
1

0.2

270

60

330

120

0.4

0.6

0.8

300

90
1

60

30

330

30

Figure 4.6: Stable

Figure 4.7: Critically stable

( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =15)

( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =25.2)

180
21
0

150

Unit circle

240

120

0.2

270

0.4

300

0.6

0.8

90
1

60

330

30
0

Figure 4.8: Unstable

( =0.3, L/D=1, S=1, C=1, =5, M =35)

32

4.3.2.1 Effect of eccentricity ratio on critical mass parameter

In Fig. 4.9, plot of critical mass parameter versus eccentricity ratio is shown for plain gas
bearing, S=0 and GFB S=1, C=1 for L/D=1, =1. It is observed that critical mass parameter
increases with increase in eccentricity ratio for both plain gas bearing and GFB; from this it
appears that bearings operating under highly loaded condition are more stable. Fig. 4.9 also
shows that at low eccentricity ratios GFBs are more stable than same configuration plain gas
bearings, here for L/D=1, =1, up to eccentricity ratio =0.37 GFBs are more stable and
beyond that plain gas bearings have more stability.

4.3.2.2 Effect of Bearing number on critical mass parameter

In Fig. 4.10, plot of critical mass parameter versus bearing number is shown for plain gas
bearing, S=0 and GFB S=1, C=1 for L/D=1, =0.3, it is observed that critical mass parameter
increases with increase in bearing number for both plain gas bearing and GFB. For higher
values of bearing number, critical mass parameter almost remains same in case of GFB
therefore it appears that plain gas bearings have better stability at higher values of bearing
numbers. Fig. 4.10 also shows that GFB is slightly more stable than plain gas bearings at low
bearing numbers, here for L/D=1, =0.3, up to bearing number =2.11 GFB has better
stability and beyond that plain gas bearing is more stable.

50

40
35
30
25

Unstable

20
15
10
5
0.1

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

45
40
35

Unstable

30
25
20

Stable

15

Stable
0.15

Plain gas bearing

GFB (S=1,C=1)

50

Critical mass parameter

Critical mass parameter

55

Plain gas bearing

GFB (S=1,C=1)

45

0.45

0.5

0.55

Eccentricity ratio

0.6

10
1

10

Bearing number

Figure 4.9: Effect of eccentricity ratio on mass

Figure 4.10: Effect of bearing number on mass

parameter for L/D=1, =1

parameter for L/D=1, =0.3

33

4.4 Summary
In this chapter, 1D FE model for GFB which considers deflections of both bump foils and top
foil has been developed and present steady state results are compared with published
experimental data. Nonlinear stability analysis of GFB has also been carried out. Conclusion
and scope of future work have been provided in the next chapter.

34

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Future work
5.1 Introduction
In the present study, scope of the present work has been determined by studying available
literature on GFBs (chapter 1). Solution schemes for the Reynolds equation and equations of
motion of rigid rotors have been outlined (chapter 2). For the deflections of foil structure two
models have been considered, one simple model which considers deflection of bump foils
only (chapter 3) and another model which considers deflections of bump as well as top foil
(chapter 4). Using these models, steady state results have been compared with the available
theoretical and experimental results. Successively nonlinear time transient stability analysis
of rigid rotors mounted on GFBs considering both the models has been carried out.

5.2 Conclusions
From the study of nonlinear time transient stability analysis of GFB models developed in
chapters 3 and 4, following conclusions have been drawn,

Critical mass parameter increases with increase in eccentricity ratio for both plain gas
bearing and GFB; from this it appears that bearings operating under highly loaded
conditions are more stable

At low eccentricity ratios GFBs are more stable than same configuration plain gas
bearings, in view of this, it may be concluded that GFBs have better stability than
plain gas bearings of similar configuration at lightly loaded conditions only.

Critical mass parameter increases with increase in bearing number for both plain gas
bearing and GFBs; from this it appears that bearings operating with higher values of
bearing numbers are more stable.

Critical mass parameter almost remains same in case of GFBs for higher values of
bearing numbers; therefore it appears that plain gas bearings have better stability than
35

GFB at higher values of bearing numbers.

Critical mass parameter of GFB is slightly more than that of plain gas bearings at
lower values of bearing number, therefore it may be concluded that at lower values of
bearing numbers GFBs do not help much to improve stability.

Increasing compliance coefficient improves stability of GFB up to a certain value of

bearing number and beyond that GFBs with less compliance coefficient have better
stability; therefore it may be concluded that GFBs with more compliant foil structure
have better stability but up to certain value of bearing number and beyond that less
compliant GFBs have better stability.

Present results for steady state load capacity and attitude angle have been compared
with experimental results available in Ruscitto et al [12] and nonlinear stability analysis
results of GFBs have been studied with those of the plain gas bearings in chapters 3 and 4. In
an attempt to compare results of both the developed models, steady state results of both the
models are compared together with experimental results of Ruscitto et al [12] and stability
curves for both the models of GFB and plain gas bearing have been plotted together.

5.2.1 Static performance analysis

In an attempt to find out the model with better static performance, results of both the models
are compared along with available experimental results as shown in Figs. 5.1 through 5.4.
Fig. 5.1 gives minimum film thickness versus applied static load and Fig. 5.2 gives journal
attitude angle versus applied static load for the shaft speed 45,000 rpm. It is observed that
both the models overestimate minimum film thickness by 0% to 26% and attitude angle by
2% to 6%.
Figure 5.3 gives minimum film thickness versus applied static load and Fig. 5.4 gives
journal attitude angle versus applied static load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm. It is observed that
both the models overestimate minimum film thickness by 18% to 38% and attitude angle by
29% to 36%.
It has also been observed that steady state results of both the models are matching
with each other, except attitude angles obtained by 1D FE model, which are more than those
obtained by the simple model up to the applied static load 32N for both the shaft speeds
36

45,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm; therefore it may be concluded that for steady state analysis both

40

60

Prediction (simple model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)
Prediction (1D FE model)

Journal attitude angle [deg]

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

the models produce same results.

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

150

Static load [N]

Prediction (simple model)

Test point (Ruscitto,et al.)
Prediction (1D FE model)

25

50

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 5.2: Journal attitude angle versus static

load for shaft speed 45,000 rpm

load for shaft speed 45,000

40

60

Prediction (simple model)

Test point - mid plane (Ruscitto, et al.)
Prediction (1D FE model)

Predictions (simple model)

Test point (Ruscitto, et al.)
Predictions (1D FE model)

50

Journal attitude angle [deg]

Minimum film thickness [micrometer]

Figure 5.1: Minimum film thickness versus static

30

20

10

40

30

20

10

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Static load [N]

Figure 5.3: Minimum film thickness versus static

Figure 5.4: Journal attitude angle versus static

load for shaft speed 30,000 rpm

load for shaft speed 30,000

5.2.2 Nonlinear stability analysis

In an attempt to compare results of both the developed models of GFB, stability curves for
both the models of GFB and plain gas bearing have been plotted together.
Figure 5.5 shows combined plot of critical mass parameter versus eccentricity ratio
for simple model (S=1) and 1D FE model (S=1, C=1) of GFB along with the same
configuration plain gas bearing for (L/D=1, =1). It is observed that, simple model and 1D
FE model of GFB shows better stability than plain gas bearing up to the eccentricity ratios
0.45 and 0.37 respectively and beyond that plain gas bearing has more stability. It is also
37

observed that simple model gives better stability than 1D FE model.

Figure 5.6 shows combined plot of critical mass parameter versus bearing number for
simple model (S=1) and 1D FE model (S=1, C=1) of GFB along with the same configuration
plain gas bearing for (L/D=1, =0.3). It is observed that, simple model and 1D FE model
have better stability than plain gas bearing up to bearing numbers 2.34 and 2.11 respectively
and beyond that plain gas bearing has better stability. In view of this, it may be concluded
that GFBs have better stability than plain gas bearings of similar configuration at lightly
loaded conditions only. It is also observed that simple model gives slightly better stabilit y
than 1D FE model at lower bearing numbers and at higher values of bearing numbers both the
models produce same results, here both the models produce same results beyond the bearing
number 6.2.

50

40

50

35
30
25

Unstable

20
15
10
5
0.1

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

45

GFB (1D FE model)

40
35
30

Unstable

25
20

Stable

15

Stable
0.15

Plain gas bearing

GFB (Simple model)

Critical mass parameter

Critical mass parameter

45

55

Plain gas bearing

GFB (simple model)
GFB (1D FE model)

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

Eccentricity ratio

Figure 5.5: Critical mass parameter versus

eccentricity ratio (L/D=1, =1).

10
1

10

Bearing number

Figure 5.6: Critical mass parameter versus

bearing number (L/D=1,

=0.3).

5.3 Scope of Future Work

Present study can be extended to incorporate the following,
More realistic models of GFB can be developed by considering,

2D, 3D shape of foil structure.

Friction between bearing housing and bump foil and bump foil and top foil.

Deflection dependency of bump foils stiffness.

Effect of temperature on foil structure can be considered.

Time transient stability analysis of flexible rotors mounted on GFBs can be done by
extending the present work.

38

APPENDIX A

K1 Hi3 (C1 C2 )

K2 Hi3 (C3 C4 )

K3 C5 C6 C7

(W Wi 1 )

K 4 2 sin( ) cos( ) i 1

P P
K5 2H i i 1, j i 1, j
2

C1

2
( )2

C2

2
(Z )2

C3

Pi 1, j Pi 1, j
( )2

39

C4

C5

C6

C7

Pi , j 1 Pi , j 1
(Z )2

( Pi 1, j Pi 1, j )( Pi 1, j H i31 Pi 1, j H i31 )
4( )2

( Pi , j 1 Pi , j 1 )( Pi , j 1 H i3 Pi , j 1H i3 )
4(Z )2

( Pi 1, j H i 1 Pi 1, j H i 1 )
2( )

40

APPENDIX B

Elemental stiffness matrix,

6 A 156 B 3 Ahe 22 Bhe

2 Ahe2 4 Bhe2
e
K

sym
Where A

6 A 54 B
3 Ahe 13Bhe
6 A 156 B

3 Ah e 13Bhe

Ahe2 3Bhe2
3 Ahe 22 Bhe

2 Ahe2 4 Bhe2

h
2C
, B e
3
420S
he

Vector of generalized displacements,

u1e
e
u
e
{u } 2e
u3
u4e

{F e } = Force vector
6
9he

2
qi he he qi 1 qi 2he
e
F

12 6 60 21h Qe
e

he
3he2
Where
qi P i 1 , qi 1 P i 1 1

Vector of generalized forces,

Q1e
e
Q
e
Q Q2e
3
Q3e
41

REFERENCES
[1] Agrawal, G. L., 1997, Foil Air/Gas Bearing Technology -An Overview, International Gas
Turbine & Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, ASME paper 97-GT-347.

[2] Heshmat, H., Walowit, J., and Pinkus, O., 1983, Analysis of Gas-Lubricated Compliant
Journal Bearings, ASME Journal of Lubrication Technology, 105 (4), pp. 647-655.

[3] Peng, J.-P, and Carpino, M., 1993, Calculation of Stiffness and Damping Coefficient for
Elastically Supported Gas Foil Bearings, ASME Journal of Tribology, 115 (1), pp. 20-27.

[4] Braun MJ, Choy FK, Dzodzo M, Hsu J. 1996, Two-dimensional dynamic simulation of a
continuous foil bearing, Tribol Int, 29(1):618.

[5] DellaCorte, C., and Valco, M. J., 2000, Load Capacity Estimation of Foil Air Journal
Bearings for Oil-Free Turbomachinery Applications, NASA/TM2000209782.

[6] Heshmat, H., 1994, Advancements in the Performance of Aerodynamic Foil Journal
Bearings: High Speed and Load Capacity, J. Tribol., 116, pp. 287-295

[7] DellaCorte, C., and Valco, M., 2003, Oil-Free Turbomachinery Technology for Regional
Jet, Rotorcraft and Supersonic Business Jet Propulsion Engines, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, ASABE 1182.

[8] Ku, C.-P, and Heshmat, H., 1992, Complaint Foil Bearing Structural Stiffness Analysis
Part I: Theoretical Model -Including Strip and Variable Bump Foil Geometry, ASME
Journal of Tribology, 114 (2), pp. 394-400.

[9] Ku, C.-P, and Heshmat, H., 1993, Complaint Foil Bearing Structural Stiffness Analysis
Part II: Experimental Investigation, ASME Journal of Tribology, 113 (3), pp. 364-369.

[10] Rubio, D. and San Andrs, L., 2004, Bump-Type Foil Bearing Structural Stiffness:
42

Experiments and Predictions, ASME Paper GT 2004-53611.

[11] Lee, Y.-B., Kim, T.-H., Kim, C.-H., Lee, N.S., and Choi, D.-H., 2004. Dynamic
Characteristics of a Flexible Rotor System Supported by a Viscoelastic Foil Bearing (VEFB),
Tribology International, 37, pp. 679-687.

[12] Ruscitto, D., Mc Cormick, J., and Gray, S., 1978, Hydrodynamic Air Lubricated
Compliant Surface Bearing for an Automotive Gas Turbine Engine I-Journal Bearing
Performance, NASA CR-135368.

[13] Lee, D., Kim, Y., Kim, K., 2007, The Static Performance Analysis of foil journal
bearings considering three-dimensional shape of the foil structure, ASME Jounal of
Tribology, vol.130.

[14] Lez, S., Mihai, A., Jean, F., 2008, Nonlinear Numerical Prediction of Gas Foil Bearing
Stability and Unbalanced Response, ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbine and
Power, vol.131.

[15] Iordanoff, I., Bou, S., Mezianne, A., Berthier, Y., 2008, Effect of internal friction in the
dynamic behavior of aerodynamic foil bearings, Tribology International 41 (2008) 387395.

[16] Lee, Y., Park, D., Kim, C., Kim, S., 2008, Operating characteristics of the bump foil
journal bearings with top foil bending phenomenon and correlation among bump foils,
Tribology International 41, 221233.

[17] Kim, T. H., and San Andrs, L., 2005, Heavily Loaded Gas Foil Bearings: A Model
Anchored to Test Data, ASME Paper No. GT2005-68486..

[18] Iordanoff, I., 1999, Analysis of an Aerodynamic Compliant Foil Thrust Bearing: Method
for a Rapid Design, J. Tribol., 121, pp. 816-822.

[19] San Andres, L., Kim, T., 2009, Analysis of gas foil bearings integrating FE top foil
models, Tribology International 42, 111 120.

43

[20] San Andres, L., Kim, T., 2008, Forced nonlinear response of gas foil bearing supported
rotors, Tribology International 41,704715.

[21] L.Y. Xiong, G. Wu, Y. Hou, L.Q. Liu, M.F.,1997, Ling and C. Z. Chen, Development of
aerodynamic foil journal bearings for a high speed cryogenic turboexpander, Cryogenics 37,
221-230.

[22] M. C. Mujumder, B.C. Mujumdar, 1997, Nonlinear transient analysis for an externally
pressurised porous gas journal bearing, Wear, 132 (1989) 139 - I50.

[23] Pan Yang, Ke-Qin Zhu, Xiao-Li Wang, 2009,On the non-linear stability of self-acting
gas journal bearings, Tribology International 42,71 76.

[24] DellaCorte, C., Zaldana, A., and Radil, K., 2003, A System Approach to the Solid
Lubrication of Foil Air Bearing for Oil-Free Turbomachinery, ASME Journal of Tribology,
126 (1), pp. 200-207.

[25] B.C. Majumdar, 1999, Introduction to Tribology of Bearings, A. H. Wheeler & Co. Ltd,
New Delhi.

[26] Reddy JN, An introduction to the finite element method (Chapter 4), Singapore:
McGraw- Hill; (1993).

44