Single Plane Balance Problem 1

[dynaman]

Hi guys,

I recently built a circuit that interfaces with a MEMS accelerometer to perform a single plane balance. This was done on an electric motor and fan combination (5" diamater). The circuit interfaces with a CRO and generates a sine wave and also filters any unwanted noise coming from the motor.

I had originally placed the fan/motor configuration on a square aluminium beam supported by a fulcrum rod sitting on top of two rare earth magnets. A Velcro strap wrapped around the motor/fan to hold it to the beam. The beam ends have two pieces of silicon tubing that act as a spring/dampener to a ground plane. When the motor spins the whole unit oscillates about the fulcrum. The accelerometer is mounted on top of the fan shroud at a point furthest from the fulcrum point. This is a make shift set-up, crude but worked OK.

When I run this set-up I can perform a good single plane balance. I use a trial weight and measure phase shifts between weight and no-weight runs. All is good.

I decided to construct a proper beam mount with a refined fulcrum. This setup allows the fan/motor to rock about the fulcrum with little oscillation normal to the fulcrum axis. However as nice as the beam mount is, it doesn't work very well. When I place the trial weight and then remove it between runs, I don not get a phase shift as I would with the crude setup. In other words the beam mount seems to be insensitive to changes in unbalance.

I'm not sure what is going on here? How can I build a mount that gives me consistent phase shifting?

thanks

Mark.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd guess that there was enough compliance in the first setup to allow the assembly to behave as if it was free free, whereas in the second case you've added too stiff a constraint.

A couple of photos would help.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dynaman]

OK here are the pics. The old setup is the black casing. The new setup is the wooden frame.

 

[dynaman]

lets try again,

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=f06f8cfc-4dba-46d5-9835-2c8c0e4b659a&file=Old_1.jpg

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=448e3187-1081-4c7c-b418-38a0c601da01&file=Old_2.jpg

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=48fe65e6-4250-4bfb-a12c-84df90550b31&file=New_1.jpg

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=c96b8329-3fef-42bd-abe2-03cc385274b1&file=New_2.jpg

 

[Strong]

Mark,

I suggest measuring vibration in the horizontal-radial direction on the new configuration. The unbalance force would cause a rocking motion about the fulcrum and be more sensitive to weight changes.

Walt

 

[dynaman]

Hi Walt,

The accelerometer was sitting horizontal on top of the fan shroud. I figured that the rocking would have caused a higher tangential acceleration at this location.

cheers

Mark.

 

[dynaman]

Just thinking about this again, I need to design a mount that is unstable which makes it sensitive to weight changes. Maybe the new mount stabilizes the fan/motor configuration too much?

On the crude setup the fan/motor is essentially sitting on two points that is one point using blue tack on the base of the fan and another point at the base of the motor (to stop it sitting from sagging). The motor hangs a fair way out the back of the fan shroud.

On the new setup the fulcrum is more rigid and allows motion about one axis. Also the pivot points are further apart.

Any thoughts?

 

[GregLocock]

I'll stick with my original comments.

One thing you can try is to put the trial mass at 4 or more locations on the rotor. Then plot the vector diagram of the imbalance. This is far more robust than a single measurement.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dynaman]

Hi Greg, why is the 4 point more robust? Still trying to understand the mechanics behind this. Thanx.

 

[GregLocock]

The vector diagram that you can then plot shows you if the system is non linear, and also shows you the relationship between the measured phase of the vibration and the angular orientation of the trial weight.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dynaman]

OK makes sense thanks. Is there an Excel spreadsheet available for the 4 point method?

 

[dynaman]

I found this....

http://www.experimentalhelo.com/eh_Feature3-Meidell_Article.htm

I assume this is the method Greg recommended?

 

[GregLocock]

That's the basic idea, but if you know the phase of your vibration measurements you can jump to the answer much more quickly. The final plot is the same, you just don't need the amplitude circles, as he calls them.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Strong]

Mark,

The softest support I can think of is to hang fan from two strings, one at fan shroud and the other at motor. One or two horizontal strings could stabilize the fan thrust. I am guessing that your vibration sensor and/or measurement system is not sensitive enough to measure the low vibration levels that you have on this fan.

Walt

 

[dynaman]

Thanks Walt. I tried a new method yesterday by placing the front of the fan on the beam mount and the motor supported by a block of foam. Worked well for the one-shot and 4 point methods (got similar answers). The trick is to have soft mounting and allow enough DOF for the vibrating device. The sensor will pick up no problem if the supports are set up correctly.

cheers

Mark.

 

[electricpete]

Good comments from knowledgeable folks already. I'm trying to catch up.

What’s a CRO?
How are you getting a phase reference to compare to your vibration?
You said you’re not able to get an angle shift by adding weight... are you able to get a magnitude change? Did you try increasing the weight?
Is the measured vibration time waveform sinusoidal?
Do your pieces of tube remain continuously in tension during the vibration? (that would be my hope to help ensure linearity)
Out of curiosity, what speed is the fan?


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[dynaman]

CRO = oscilloscope

Reference from an optical pickup.

Yes I was getting a magnitude change (4 point method would work here).

Waveform is fundamentally sinusoidal. Need some filtering to remove noise.

Tubes are in compression most of the time.

Fan speed is 30~40Hz.

 

[electricpete]

The spring is a linear restoring force. The force of gravity on something resembling an inverted pendulum is a little unusual in the context of balancing rotating machinery. I'm not sure how to think about that. I guess if the spring force from those two tubes is much larger than gravity force at max angle of tilt, and again those springs both remain very far into tension, it should not be a problem. But if these assumptions are not met, seems like effect of gravity creates as you say an unstable system.. does not resemble a typical machine.

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

I was typing while you were writing.

Tubes are in compression most of the time.

That sounds like a recipe for a possible non-linear system for 2 reasons:
1 - if the tube springs buckle, that would certainly be non-linear.
2 - most of the time? It seems like changing direction could create some problems when trying to replicate ideal spring with a flexible tube (does spring constant change when it changes direction).

It strikes me that in your first setup, the black velcro band played a big role and avoided inerted-pendulum effect and also lessened the role of those probably-non-ideal springs (the tubes).

Why is it that you want to create an inverted pendulum?
What are you trying to accomplish?

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?

 

[electricpete]

For a quick experiment to see if the inverted pendulum configuration is causing problems, can you turn it on it's side and re-try the balance?

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?