2001-36

Rotor-dynamics Analysis Process

Mohammad A. Heidari, Ph.D.
Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207

David L. Carlson
Principal Engineer
The Boeing Company
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207

Ted Yantis
Principal Engineer
The Boeing Company
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the Boeing rotor-dynamics analysis procedures using MSC.Nastran. These analytical
procedures are typically used in analyses supporting airplane and propulsion system designs, but they are
applicable to any structure in which the rotating parts can be idealized as a collection of rigid disks and line
elements co-linear with an axis of rotation. Each rotating component is modeled separately in its own
superelement, which allows structures to be modeled with an arbitrary number of components rotating at
different speeds about different axes. The standard MSC.Nastran solutions for frequency response,
complex eigenvalue, and transient analyses have been enhanced by Boeing to include both synchronous
and non-synchronous gyroscopic effects. Gyroscopic matrices are used in the steady state solutions, and
are included in the mass and damping matrices depending on whether the solution is synchronous or nonsynchronous. Specific topics discussed in this paper are: gyroscopic matrices, equations of motion, and
damping representation. An example problem is presented which illustrates the application of the rotordynamics analysis procedures. This example is a representative finite element model of an engine mounted
on a wing. The accuracy of the nonlinear transient analysis technique is validated with test/analysis
correlation results for an actual propulsion system during the fan blade loss event.

Notation
Ip

polar moment of inertia about the axis of spin

Mx
My

&x
& y

oi

moment about the x-axis

moment about the y-axis
rotational velocity about the x-axis
rotational velocity about the y-axis
speed of rotation about the z-axis (engine axis)
constant

Ri

shaft i speed ratio relative to the reference speed

p
g

complex eigenvalue solution

uniform structural damping coefficient
modal damping coefficient for mode i

REF reference speed, for example, N1

i
i
gj
S ij

frequency of mode i
structural damping coefficient for superelement j
percent of the total strain energy that superelement j contributes in mode i

[K]

(1 + ig)[ K ] + i[ K 4]

[K4]

assembled structural damping matrix based on element structural damping

[B ]

complex system stiffness matrix

system damping matrix, including gyroscopic terms

[] complex system eigenvectors

{U ( )} steady state response vector
{P( )} input forcing function for frequency response analysis (e.g. rotor unbalance)
{P( t)} input forcing function for transient analysis
{N ( t)} nonlinear force vector

1.0 Introduction
In recent years, airplane certification requirements have been mandated requiring rotor-dynamics failure events to be
rigorously analyzed. In order to satisfy these new requirements, the scope and complexity of the finite element
models of the airplane and propulsion systems have increased significantly. Typical solutions performed at Boeing
are to identify engine critical speeds, and to ultimately design airplane/engine/nacelle structures which tolerate the
extreme conditions such as fan blade loss events.
The changes and additions to the standard MSC.Nastran solution DMAPs are referred to in this paper as The
Boeing Rotor Deliverables. These DMAPs are updated by Boeing whenever a new version of MSC.Nastran is
released. All procedures described in this paper have notations used by MSC.Software in their MSC.Nastran
Documentation. More details regarding the standard MSC.Nastran procedures and equations described herein can
be found in Chapter 9 of Reference (5). The Boeing Rotor Deliverables require that each rotor be placed in its own
superelement. The polar moment of inertias from the mass matrix are then used to build the gyro matrices.

2.0 Theory
The rotor-dynamic superelement analysis procedure can be summarized by the flowing steps:
Step 1 Superelement matrix generation and assembly
Step 2 Superelement dynamic reduction
Step 3 Develop and reduce the gyroscopic matrices
Step 4 Repeat steps 1-3 for each superelement
Step 5 Assemble and reduce the final analysis matrices

Step 6 Perform the rotor-dynamics analyses

Step 7 Extract and evaluate the results
The steps 1,2,4, and 5 are adequately documented in Reference (5), and step 7 is post-processing of MSC.Nastran
output. The theory behind Steps 3, and 6 are summarized in this section. There is no requirement about the reduction
of the entire model to the analysis set except that each rotor must be placed in its own superelement. The analysis
set must contain enough information about the rotors to adequately define their behavior. The analysis set must also
contain all nonlinearities. It is prudent to minimize the size of the residual superelement for economical reasons, but
enough generalized coordinates, and physical freedoms need to be included to define the rest of the system.
2.1 Development of the Gyroscopic Matrices:
The gyroscopic forces experienced by an axisymmetric rigid body motion rotating about the axis of symmetry, here
assumed to be the z-axis, can be represented by:

M x
0

=
M y
I p

I p &x

0 & y

(1)

The matrix gyro capability available with the The Boeing Rotor Deliverables, the rotational speed of rotor i is:
i = oi + Ri REF
(2)
The assumption in The Boeing Rotor Deliverables is that the spinning structure can be modeled as an assembly of
rigid rotating bodies aligned on a common spin axis and connected by flexible beam type elements . The individual
gyroscopic matrices can be assembled into superelement gyro matrices and to be reduced to the superelement
boundary. This process is similar to that used for the mass and damping matrices, and described in Section (9) of
Reference (5). The superelement gyroscopic forces can be described as:

{PGYRO } = ([BGYRO ] + REF [GGYRO ]){U& }

(3)

Where,

[ B ] are the coefficients from equations (1) and (2) related to

[ G ] are the coefficients from equations (1) and (2) related to R , the rotor speed ratios
{U& } are rotational velocities normal to the spin axis
GYRO

oi

GYRO

The gyroscopic matrices, [BGYRO] and [GGYRO], for the residual structure can then be added to the damping and mass
matrices as appropriate for the type of analysis being done, as described below. For synchronous analyses such as
synchronous frequency response or complex modes, the reference speed, REF , is equal to the speed of excitation
(frequency response) or the frequency of the mode (complex eigenvalues), in both cases denoted by

In this

case, [BGYRO], the matrix of gyroscopic coefficients related to the constant speed term of Equation 2 ( oi ), is added
to the system damping matrix and the proportional part, [GGYRO], is added to the system mass matrix, as described in
Section 2.2. For non-synchronous analysis types, such as non-synchronous frequency response, complex modes, or
transient response, the reference speed REF , is constant. Hence, REF must be defined by the analyst, and the
term [BGYRO] +

REF [GGYRO] is added to the system damping matrix, as described in Section 2.2.

2.2 Analyses on the Residual Structure

The total system analyses are performed using the reduced residual structure matrices. Here, the unknowns are any
retained physical freedoms and the generalized freedoms. The equations used for the various analysis types are
illustrated in this section.

2.2.1 Complex Eigenvalue Analysis

Complex eigenvalue analyses can be performed for constant analysis speed (i.e.,

= REF ) or as synchronous

analyses, where the reference spin speed is assumed to be equal to the mode frequencies. Complex normal mode
frequencies and vectors are extracted by means of the following equation:

([K ]+ p[B ]+ p [M ])[ ] = 0, p = a + i

2

(4)

Where,

[ B ] = [ B] + [ B ] ,
[B ] = [B ] + [B ] + [G
[M ] = [M ] i[G ] ,
[ M] = [ M],

Synchronous

GYRO

GYRO

REF

GYRO

],

Asynchronous
Synchronous

GYRO

Asynchronous

The Boeing Rotor Deliverables has the capability to step through a table of reference speeds, performing a
complete asynchronous analysis for each speed. This capability enables the analyst to construct a Campbell diagram
which is a plot of complex frequencies versus rotation speed.

2.2.2 Frequency Response Analysis

Steady state frequency response analyses can be performed for constant analysis speed (

= REF ) or as

synchronous analyses, where the reference spin speed is assumed to be equal to the frequency of the forcing
function. The equation of motion for steady state frequency response analysis can be written as:

([K ] + i [B ] [M ]){U ( )} = {P ( )}
2

(5)

Damping and mass matrices in equations (4) and (5) are the same.

2.2.3 Transient Analysis

Transient analyses are by definition asynchronous, and the individual rotor spin speeds may be functions of time.
The gyroscopic forces may be modeled by using the matrix gyro approach described for the linear analysis types, or
by defining nonlinear forces (NOLINs) which allow continuous variation of the rotor speeds with time, or by using a
combination of the two approaches. The equation of motion for transient response analysis is:

[ K ]{U ( t)} + [ B ]{U& ( t )} + [ M ]{U&& ( t)} = {P( t)} + {N ( t)}

In the typical engine fan blade loss analyses

(6)

{N ( t)} is used to model forces due to nonlinear interfaces and

gyroscopic forces. These forces are functions of displacements or velocities from the previous time steps.

[B ]

which is the system damping matrix may also include gyroscopic terms for non-synchronous linear analyses. All
damping components such as structural damping, Rayleigh damping, or Direct Modal Damping as discussed in
Section 2.4 can be included in

[ B ] and the equation is:

[B ] = [B ] + Wg3 [K ] + W14 [K 4] + [B

GYRO

] + REF [GGYRO ] + [M ] + [K ]

(7)

Properties that explicitly vary with time, such as failure or breakage analysis, are most efficiently modeled by using
transfer functions or direct matrix input in order to directly add terms to the [K], [B], and [M] matrices. The Boeing

Rotor Deliverables allows this type of input to be changed for each residual structure subcase in SOL 129 which is
nonlinear transient analysis.

2.3 Breakage Simulation

Breakage or fusing mechanism is a local non-linear event that occurs by design to relieve structural loading during a
severe event such as engine fan blade loss. Because of the size of the typical engine model and the number of time
steps required for the typical Fan Blade Loss analysis, non-linear materials and elements are not usually included in
the model. Instead, non-linear effects are simulated by one or both of the following methods:
(a) Include the non-linearities on the force vector side of the equations of motion, as with the circular gap (i.e.,
NLRGAP) or NOLIN gyroscopic moment calculations. This method still requires iterations for convergence, but
often it is the only efficient option for large models which is a standard MSC.Nastran capability.
(b) Incorporate the non-linear effects in the transient analysis by explicitly changing the structural matrices at a given
time in the analysis. If the approximate timing of the event is known and only a gross representation of the event is
required, this method is an efficient analysis technique, since it adds no requirement for additional iterations. The
required changes to the structural matrices can be accomplished by including DMIG matrices or alternatively by
using transfer functions, to the stiffness, mass, or damping matrices. For SOL 129, The Boeing Rotor Deliverables
allows various transfer functions and DMIG matrices to be used in each residual structure subcase. This capability is
typically used to model the breakage that sometimes occurs in a fan blade loss event. The undamaged structure
stiffness can be added to the analysis in the first subcase, and replaced at the beginning of a subsequent subcase
with a DMIG matrix or transfer function with null coefficients. Figure 1 shows this process graphically.

2.4 Direct Modal Damping Formulation

Direct Modal Damping is a way to use a modal damping formulation in direct transient or direct frequency response
analyses. The modal damping coefficients are calculated, redistributed to physical coordinates, and added to the
viscous damping matrix. For structures that have significant response at frequencies other than the forcing
frequency, Direct Modal Damping is more accurate as compared to structural damping because structural damping is
mostly accurate correct at only one frequency (specified in MSC.Nastran by parameters W3 and W4). Direct Modal
Damping can also be tailored so that the modal damping coefficient for each mode reflects the damping
characteristics of the part of the structure being exercised by that mode. Starting with the basic equation of motion:

[ M ]{ X&& } + [ C]{ X& } + [ K ]{ X } = {F( t )}

(8)

We can express the displacements as a linear combination of the independent eigenvectors:

{ X } = [ ]{ q}

(9)

Applying the transformation gives:

[ ]T [M ][ ]{q&&}+ [ ]T [C ][ ]{q& }+ [ ]T [K ][ ]{q} = [ ]T {F (t)}

Since

[ ] are mass normalized, equation (10) can be expressed as:

T
2

{q} = [ ]T {F (t )}
{&&} [ ] [ ][ ]{&}
I

q + C q +

(10)

(11)

We can define a diagonal modal damping matrix [D] such that:

Dii = i i

(12)

If a different structural damping coefficient is assumed for each superelement, one rational way to calculate the
equivalent overall modal damping coefficient for each mode would be to sum the superelement structural damping
coefficients, using the fraction of strain energy that each superelement contributes to the mode as weighting factors:

i =
j

S ij g j

(13)

To calculate the matrix [C] that corresponds to matrix [D], start with the identity:

[ D] = [ ] [ C][ ]
T

(14)

[ ] is mass normalized:
[ ] = [ ] [ M ]

Since

We can solve for [C]:

[ C] = [ M ][ ][ D][ ] [ M ]
T

(15)

This calculated matrix [C] can then be used directly in equation (8) or can be added to matrix

[ B ] in equation (6).

The disadvantages of Direct Modal Damping are that it creates a very full viscous damping matrix, and all the modes
of response must be calculated. These disadvantages can be circumvented somewhat by combining structural
damping with Direct Modal Damping. In order to combine Direct Modal Damping with structural damping, the normal
practice is to use modes only up to max , the frequency at which the structural damping gives the correct value.
The modal damping coefficients are then adjusted so that they have their full value at a modal frequency of 0.0 Hertz,
and decrease in a linear fashion to g=0.0 at frequency max . This is to account for the fact that the structural

damping effect increases linearly from g=0.0 at 0.0 Hertz to the correct value at frequency max . The effectiveness
of the structural damping will continue to increase for frequencies above

max . Figure 2 shows how structural and

Direct Modal Damping can be combined to give the desired damping level as a function of the frequency content of
the structural responses. Assuming that equation (13) is used to calculate the overall damping for each mode, the
appropriate modal damping coefficients to account for the addition of structural damping with a coefficient of g max
can be calculated by:

S ij g j

i =
g max i
2
max
j
Where max is given by PARAM, W3 in MSC.Nastran.

(16)

3.0 Enhancements to SOL 129:

A number of enhancements have been added to SOL 129 (direct non-linear transient analysis), in The Boeing Rotor
Deliverables. These have all been geared toward enhancing the accuracy of fan blade off analyses by allowing
changes in various analysis parameters with each subcase. The parameters that can be changed include the
following:
Direct input matrices: (K2PP, B2PP, M2PP). Direct input matrices can be used to model gyroscopic effects,
structural properties such as stiffness, etc., or transfer functions and constraint equations via. LaGrange multipliers.
Any of these quantities can change in a piecewise fashion with time.
Transfer Functions: Transfer functions are exactly equivalent to direct input matrices, and can be changed in the
same way. Both transfer functions and direct input matrices are commonly used to model LaGrange multipliers and
breakage simulation described in Section 2.3.
Damping related parameters: such parameters are G, W3, and W4. Structural damping is only correct at one
frequency of response in transient analyses. That frequency is defined by parameters W3 and W4, and it is often
desirable to change W3 and W4 as the engine rotors spool down and the unbalance load changes frequency.
Another way to enhance the damping simulation is to use the Direct Modal Damping capability described earlier.

Parameter N1SPD: Changing this parameter allows the rotor speeds used for any matrix gyroscopic effect
calculations to change in a piecewise fashion with time, to account for engine spool-down. Typically, the small highspeed rotors are modeled with matrix gyro using this piecewise linear time varying technique, which is much more
numerically efficient than the non-linear force technique. In order to capture the effect of continuously varying spin
speed accurately, the gyroscopic effects of the low speed rotor which is normally the larger rotor are usually modeled
with NOLINs or a combination of NOLINs and matrix gyro.

4.0 An Example Problem

The Prototype Engine Rotor Dynamics Model is shown in Figure 3. It is a fictitious engine model developed by
Boeing and Pratt & Whitney to test analytical techniques. This model contains high bypass ratio engine with three
spools, Nacelle structure comprised of inlet, fan cowl, non-deployable thrust reverser, nozzle and plug, and strut with
typical links to the engine and beam type wing. The cross section of the finite element model is shown in Figure 4.
The rotor schematic is shown in Figure 5. Each bearing consists of scalar springs attaching a case point to the rotor.
The case point represents the average motion of the case at the bearing axial location, and is attached to the case by
an RBE3 element. The rotors are modeled with beam type elements and concentrated mass elements at the engine
centerline.
The Boeing Rotor Deliverables for MSC.Nastran Version 70.5 are applied for this example. Gyroscopic effects are
defined using the matrix methods discussed in Section 2.1. For this model, the forcing function, or unbalance load, is
at the fan rotor speed (N1). The low rotor (N2) and high rotor (N3) are assumed to be linear functions of N1. Complex
eigenvalue, frequency response, and transient response analyses were performed.
Both synchronous and non-synchronous complex eigenvalue analyses were performed. In the synchronous run the
reference (N1) speeds are equal to the mode frequencies. (One-per-Rev) line in Figure 8 connects the modal
frequencies from synchronous run. The non-synchronous run loops through N1 speeds from 0 to 4000 RPM,
performing analyses at 500 RPM intervals, calculating a set of eigenvalues for each spin rate. The results are plotted
in the Campbell diagram shown in Figure 6. Gyroscopic effects cause modal frequencies corresponding to the
rotating shafts increase (forward whirl) and decrease (backward whirl) with the shaft rotational speed. Critical speed
as it is shown in Figure 6 is the crossing of the (one-per-Rev) line with the forward whirl line. In the frequency
response analysis, a 1.0 ounce-in unbalance was applied to the FAN stage. Fan displacements are shown in Figure 7.
The structure is assumed to be in a steady state condition at the start of the transient analysis using SOL 129. To
simulate this, we have a 1.0-second "run up" to bring the model from the unloaded state to the steady state. The
"run up" in this model consists of thrust building up to the pre-event level. The run up can usually be handled as a
static analysis in the first residual structure subcase with only the displacement dependant non-linearities and
stiffnesses active (TSTATIC=1). When using structural damping, there needs to be a representative frequency (W4)
selected at which the structural damping will be correct. In actuality, the frequency of the unbalance would be a
reasonable choice except that it needs to be constant within a subcase. To get around this, it is normal to break up
the event into additional subcases and to make a stepwise linear function of W4 see Figure 8. An alternative to the
structural damping used in this example would be Direct Modal Damping, discussed in Section 2.4.
The applied loads for transient analysis in Figure 9 represent the types of input supplied by the engine manufacturer
who derives them from test or analysis which are highly proprietary to simulate a fan blade loss event. The unbalance
loads are applied at the FAN location, seizure torque caused by engine deceleration is applied as uniform tangential
forces to the engine case, and thrust load is applied in fore-aft direction to the engine case.
Figure 10 shows solution 129 fan lateral displacement and strut to wing interface loads with structural and Direct
Modal Damping methods.

5. Test/Analysis Correlation
The fan blade loss test/analysis correlation studies are performed during the engine certification test to validate the
finite element model and analysis process. The analytical loads are computed based on a nonlinear transient analysis
of the integrated finite element model for the engine/test stand configuration. Figure 11 shows a schematic of the
strut hardware which integrates the engine/nacelle structure with the test-stand structure. Figures 12 show the strut

interface loads with the engine rear mount and the test stand structure. Results are non-dimensional mainly to protect
the proprietary information.

6. Conclusion
The Boeing rotor-dynamic analysis procedures with MSC.Nastran are presented in this paper. The standard
MSC.Nastran solutions for frequency response, complex eigenvalue, and transient analyses have been enhanced
with The Boeing Rotor Deliverables to include the gyroscopic effects. SOL 129 is enhanced to simulate engine
behavior during fan blade loss events. Analysis results for a fictitious engine model are presented. The accuracy of
the nonlinear transient analysis technique is validated with test/analysis correlation results for an actual propulsion
system during the fan blade loss event.

7. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Dr. Ray Frick from Pratt & Whitney for providing example engine model.

8. References
(1) H Bedrossian, N. Veikos, Rotor-Disk System Gyroscopic Effect in MSC.Nastran Dynamic Solutions, Presented at
the 1982 MSC.Nastran Users Conference.
(2) D. Bella and M. Reymond, Eds., MSC.Nastran DMAP Module Dictionary, Version 68, The MacNeal Schwendler
Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, 1994.
(3) D. Herting, MSC.Nastran Advanced Dynamic Analysis Users Guide, The MacNeal Schwendler Corporation, Los
Angeles, CA, 1997.
(4) K. Kilroy, Ed., MSC.Nastran Quick Reference Guide, Version 70.5, The MacNeal Schwendler Corporation, Los
Angeles, CA, 1998.
(5) R. Lahey, M. Miller, and M. Reymond, Eds., MSC.Nastran Version 68 Reference Manual, The MacNeal
Schwendler Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, 1995.
(6) G. Sitton, MSC.Nastran Basic Dynamic Analysis Users Guide, The MacNeal Schwendler Corporation, Los
Angeles, CA, 1997.

Interface
Stiffness

Subcase 1 (K2PP=DMIG1)

Subcase 2 (K2PP=DMIG2)

Time

Figure 1

Stiffness Change with Time (Subcase) for Fuse Modeling

Effective
Damping
Desired Damping Level
= Structural + Modal
g

Structural
Damping

Adjusted
Modal Damping Level

Response Frequency

Figure 2

max

Structural and Direct Modal Damping in Transient Analysis

Figure 3

Example , Prototype Engine Rotor Dynamics Model

Figure 4

Prototype Engine Rotor Dynamics Model Cross Section

10

Figure 5

Prototype Engine Rotor Dynamics Model Rotor Schematic

Figure 6

Campbell Diagram for example proble m

11

Figure 7

Figure 8

Example, Frequency Response Fan Displacements

Fan Rotor Speed History

12

Figure 9 Input Forcing Functions to Simulate Fan Blade Loss Event

13

Figure10

Figure11

SOL 129, Comparison of Damping Methods

Schematic of Fan Blade -out Test Strut

14

Figure 12 Test/analysis correlation of strut interface loads with engine rear mount and teststand

15

16