machines

Article
Nonlinear Dynamics of Whirling Rotor with Asymmetrically
Supported Snubber Ring
Heba Hamed El-Mongy 1,2 , Tamer Ahmed El-Sayed 1,2, * , Vahid Vaziri 2 and Marian Wiercigroch 2

1 Department of Mechanical Design, Faculty of Engineering, Mataria, Helwan University, Helmeiat-Elzaton,

Cairo P.O. Box 11718, Egypt; [email protected]
2 Centre for Applied Dynamics Research, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK; [email protected] (V.V.); [email protected] (M.W.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Rotor–stator whirling is a critical malfunction frequently encountered in rotating machinery,

often resulting in severe damages. This study investigates the nonlinear dynamics of a whirling
rotor interacting with a snubber ring through numerical simulations that account for the stiffness
asymmetries of the snubber ring. A two-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) model is employed to analyse
the contact interactions that occurred between the rotor and the snubber ring, assuming a linear
elastic contact model. The analysis also incorporates the static offset between the centers of the
rotor and the snubber ring. The dynamic behaviour of the whirling system is characterised by
pronounced nonlinearity due to transitions between contact and non-contact states. The model is
first validated against our prior theoretical and experimental studies. The nonlinear responses of the
rotor are analysed to evaluate the effects of stator asymmetry through various techniques, including
time-domain waveforms, frequency spectra, rotor orbits, and bifurcation diagrams. Furthermore,
the influence of varying system parameters, such as rotational speed and the damping ratio, both
with and without stator asymmetry, are systematically analysed. The results demonstrate that the
rubbing response is highly sensitive to small variations in system parameters, with stator asymmetry
significantly affecting system behaviour, even at low asymmetry levels. Direct stiffness asymmetry is
shown to have a more pronounced effect than cross-coupling stiffness. The system exhibits a range
of dynamics, including periodic, quasi-periodic, and chaotic responses, with regions of periodic
Citation: El-Mongy, H.H.; El-Sayed, orbits coexisting with chaotic ones. Complex phenomena such as period doubling, period halving,
T.A.; Vaziri, V.; Wiercigroch, M. and jump bifurcations are identified, alongside quasi-periodic and period doubling routes to chaos.
Nonlinear Dynamics of Whirling These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the nonlinear phenomena associated with
Rotor with Asymmetrically Supported rotor–stator whirling and provide valuable insights into the unique characteristics of rubbing faults,
Snubber Ring. Machines 2024, 12, 897.
which could facilitate fault diagnosis.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
machines12120897
Keywords: bifurcation analysis; rotor–stator whirling; stator stiffness asymmetry; nonlinear dynamics
Academic Editor: Jan Awrejcewicz

Received: 29 October 2024

Revised: 29 November 2024
1. Introduction
Accepted: 2 December 2024
Published: 6 December 2024 To achieve better performance in most modern rotating machinery such as gas turbines,
turbogenerators, and jet engines, tighter clearances between rotating and stationary parts
are usually employed. However, due to inevitable residual unbalance, misalignment,
mechanical looseness, blade failures, and other factors, excessive lateral vibration can occur
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. in rotor systems. Consequently, possibility of vibration-induced interactions between the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
rotor and stator is increased. Hence, comprehensive investigations of these dynamic effects
This article is an open access article
are crucial to achieve the safe and reliable operation of rotating machinery.
distributed under the terms and
Over the past few decades, there has been extensive research on rub interactions.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Detailed reviews in the literature of rotor–stator contact in rotordynamics are given by [1–4]
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and most recently by [5]. Many of the earlier published studies focused on the development
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
of mathematical models to represent the whirling motion and explain the mechanisms

Machines 2024, 12, 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines12120897 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2024, 12, 897 2 of 18

behind the observed vibration patterns [6–9]. Several events occur due to the contact
between a rotor and a stationary part such as impacts, friction between contacting surfaces,
and a stiffening effect, i.e.,the increased stiffness of the rotating part during contact [10].
Nonlinear dynamics of the whirling between rotor and stationary parts in high-speed
rotating machines were mostly explored using numerical models. Many researchers em-
ployed low dimensional lumped-parameter models that describe the nonlinear discontinu-
ous contact using a moderate set of ordinary differential equations to allow for analysing
system behavior in reasonable computation time [11–19]. Some studies included coupling
between the lateral vibration and torsional vibrations [20,21]. Most of the studies used
numerical integration techniques such as the Runge–Kutta algorithm but other techniques
were also employed such as Newmark-beta methods [20,22]. In addition, Finite Element
modelling was employed by various researchers [18,20,23] to build the rotor model. Due to
the strong nonlinearity associated with rotor–stator contact, very few analytical solutions
are available in the literature [24,25]. In order to verify the presented models, several
researchers conducted experimental studies and observed the different forms of dynamic
responses [15,18,26,27]. In most experimental studies, measured responses show more
complicated behaviour than simulation results obtained from whirling models, which
implies that further improvement of mathematical models is still needed to accurately
replicate real systems. The effects of various system parameters, including rotor speed,
stator stiffness, unbalance eccentricity, system damping, and the friction on the features
of dynamic responses, were also extensively studied [28–31]. Bifurcation diagrams, orbit
plots, Poincaré maps, and Lyaponuv exponents were typically employed to demonstrate
the effect of varying system parameters on the system’s behaviour [16,17,32–34]. Rub
responses were shown to be very sensitive to changing system parameters.
The main characteristic features of rotor whirling in the frequency domain are a very
rich frequency response with subharmonic and superharmonic frequency components.
As early as 1966, Ehrich [35] first identified the presence of a second-order subharmonic
response in a high-speed rotor. Then, Bently [36] reported experimental observations of
second-order and third-order subharmonic vibration and suggested that they are rub-
related. Following this, Childs [7,37] presented a mathematical explanation of the subhar-
monic response. Ehrich [38] reported the presence of subharmonic vibration with orders
as low as one-eighth and one-ninth in turbomachines. The need for monitoring the entire
frequency spectrum not only the synchronous components was emphasized by Beatty [8].
Sawicki, et al. [30] conducted a numerical analysis of a multi-mass system and attributed
the appearance of second- and third-order subharmonics to the presence of quadratic
and cubic nonlinearity, respectively. Von Groll and Ewins [39] reported a rich vibration
spectrum due to rubbing with superharmonics and strong subharmonics. Chu and Lu [40]
conducted extensive experimental work on the nonlinear vibration in a rub-impact rotor
system and observed very rich forms of periodic and chaotic motions. Both superharmonics
and subharmonics of a second order and third order were observed. Also, chaotic behavior
prevailed for severe rubbing cases. Patel and Darpe [14] used the full spectrum cascade
during coast up for rotor rub identification and observed that the subharmonics appear
at certain speed ranges and that a strong synchronous backward whirl is exhibited upon
approaching the bending critical speed. Ma et al. [41] showed that the amplitudes of
vibration and normal contact force may serve as the most distinguishable characteristic
to diagnose the severity of rubbing. Also, it was observed that the contact stiffness has a
greater effect on the system response at higher rotational speeds and that its variation will
greatly change the rebound forms.
The majority of the presented models were based on the piecewise-smooth model
and Coulomb’s friction model to describe the contact dynamics in the form of a linear
elastic contact stiffness that generates a normal restoring force [14,16,24,27]. However, there
has been continuing efforts to improve and refine the modelling of the rub interactions
by incorporating various complications to the rotor–stator model. Kim and Noah [25]
included a cross-coupling stiffness term and showed that its increasing will give rise to
Machines 2024, 12, 897 3 of 18

Hopf bifurcation that leads to quasi-periodic responses. The eccentricity between the
static equilibrium positions of the rotor and stator was considered by Karpenko et al. [12],
Karpenko et al. [24], and Popprath and Ecker [13]. Varney and Green [16] investigated
the influence of support asymmetry on the nonlinear rotor response of a rotor–stator
contact system and showed that direct stiffness asymmetry has a strong influence on the
system response even for small stiffness asymmetries. However, they did not include
rotor stiffness in the model. Yang et al. [34] studied the effect of random rotor stiffness
and random excitation on the response of a rotor rubbing system. It was shown that the
random parameters strongly influence the response at high speeds of rotation but have no
effect for low rotational speeds. Mokhtar et al. [42] developed an FE-based rotor–stator-
coupled system and demonstrated the rubbing diagnostic features based on stator vibration.
Also, the contact model was based on the Lagrange multiplier approach. Tang et al. [43]
studied the rubbing rotor system under asymmetric oil film force and observed that the
chaotic region of the response is wider in comparison with the system with symmetrical
oil film force. Zheng et al. [31] performed a parametric study and investigated the steady-
state response and stability of an asymmetric rotor with rubbing. Praveen Krishna and
Padmanabhan [27], in their experimental work, observed asymmetry in the orbit plot
during rubbing, which they attributed to the lower stiffness of the bottom stator compared
to the other sides.
The previous literature highlights a clear research gap in the investigation of rotor–stator
whirling phenomena with the consideration of stator stiffness asymmetry. Stator stiffness
asymmetry may arise in real applications from unequal levels of rigidity in different directions.
Stiffness could be inevitably much greater in one direction than in the other directions. This is
evident in real rotating machinery and in laboratory experimental rigs simulating the rubbing
rotor systems. The present work is an extension of the continuing research work at the Centre
for Applied Dynamics Research (CADR) of the University of Aberdeen.
This study explores the nonlinear dynamics of a rotor whirling within a snubber
ring, focusing on the influence of anisotropic stator stiffness on the whirling behavior.
To achieve this, a two-degrees-of-freedom rotor model is utilized, incorporating a linear
elastic contact model that fully accounts for stator asymmetry. Both direct stiffness asym-
metry and cross-coupling stiffness are included to create a more realistic representation
of the system. Additionally, the static offset between the rotor and snubber ring centers
is considered. A parametric analysis is conducted to examine the effects of key system
parameters, such as the rotational speed and damping ratio, under conditions of stator
asymmetry. Numerical integration results are analysed and presented through time-domain
waveforms, frequency spectra, rotor orbits, and bifurcation diagrams to provide insights
into the system’s dynamic behaviour.
Following this introduction, the remainder of this paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 details the mathematical model employed for investigating rotor–stator rubbing
with asymmetric stator stiffness. Section 3 presents the verification process and the novel
results obtained using the proposed model. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key
findings and contributions of this work.

2. Mathematical Modelling
Consider a two-degrees-of-freedom Jeffcott rotor supported elastically by a massless
snubber ring as shown in Figure 1. The rotor’s mass is denoted as M and rotates by
an angular frequency Ω. The rotor system is subjected to unbalance mass m and radius
ρ. The rotor’s position is described by displacements x and y in horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively. The rotor is constrained within a snubber ring where γ represents
the clearance between the rotor and stator. During rotation, the rotor may intermittently
contact the stator, resulting in nonlinear dynamic behaviour.
In the present study, the mathematical model results are compared with the exper-
imental results reported in Figure 1c, whiich shows the experimental rig used to obtain
the experimental results in [15]. The rotor system is powered by a variable-speed motor.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 4 of 18

The angular velocity is regulated through a single-phase thyristor equipped with a closed-
loop feedback mechanism utilizing a tacho-generator. The mild steel rotor features drilled
and tapped holes that enable the attachment of adjustable mass imbalances using a bolt-nut
configuration supplemented by additional washers.
The rotor is supported by two angular contact ball bearings, secured with inner sleeves
within a stationary housing. This mechanical assembly is mounted on four flexural rods
which are made from high-carbon steel, which provide fatigue-resistant elastic support.
These rods are clamped to a support block that is bolted to a heavy iron base. A pair of
dashpot dampers is attached to the rotor in orthogonal directions, complementing the
lightly damped elastic support provided by the rods.
Surrounding the rotor assembly is an aluminum snubber ring with a marginally larger
diameter. This ring is supported by four compression springs affixed to a robust frame
clamped to the iron base, as illustrated in Figure 1c. During operation, the rotor housing
can intermittently contact the snubber ring, inducing a discontinuous stiffness effect on
the system. This experimental configuration enables the analysis of the rotor’s dynamic
behavior under such conditions.
For the general case, two components of static eccentricity ε x and ε y are considered
where, ε x represents the horizontal offset between the rotor’s center Or0 and the stator’s
center Os0 at static equilibrium and similarly, ε y is the vertical static eccentricity. Thus, if the
rotor is placed concentrically within the snubber ring, then ε x = ε y = 0 and it follows that
q
ε2x + ε2y ≤ γ should be satisfied at all times. The horizontal and vertical components
of the snubber ring displacement relative to its static equilibrium position can be written
as follows:
xs = ( R − γ) cos ψ, ys = ( R − γ) sin ψ, (1)
q
where R = ( x − ε x )2 + (y − ε y )2 denotes the radial displacement of the rotor from
the equilibrium position of the snubber ring. The term ( R − γ) represents the radial
displacement of the snubber ring from its equilibrium position. Additionally, we have
y−ε
cos ψ = x−Rε x and sin ψ = R y , where ψ indicates the angular displacement of the rotor.
The mathematical modelling of the system is conducted with the following assump-
tions. The mass of the rotor is substantially greater than that of the snubber ring, permitting
the neglect of the snubber ring’s mass. There is an absence of dry friction between the
rotor and the snubber ring, the axis of rotation does not experience angular motion, thus
gyroscopic forces are excluded from consideration. Transient dynamics in the rotational
motion are disregarded, implying that the rotor maintains a constant angular velocity ω,
and gravitational effects are deemed negligible in comparison to the dynamic forces acting
within the system.
In this work, the stiffness of the stator is considered to be asymmetric. Hence, when the
rotor comes into contact with the snubber ring, the normal force components in horizontal
and vertical directions as a function in the ring’s asymmetric stiffness coefficients can be
written as:
Fn x = Kxx xs + Kxy ys , Fny = Kyx xs + Kyy ys , (2)

where Kij is the snubber ring stiffness coefficient that relates a force in the ith direction to a
displacement in the jth direction. Accordingly, the equations of motion of the rotor system
can be written as follows:
  γ
Kxx ( x − ε x ) + Kxy y − ε y = mρΩ2 cos(Ωt + φ0 ),



 M ẍ + C ẋ + Kx + λ 1 −

R (3)
 γ
Kyx ( x − ε x ) + Kyy y − ε y = mρ Ω2 sin(Ωt + φ0 ),



 Mÿ + C ẏ + Ky + λ 1 −

R
where C and K denote the viscous damping and stiffness of the rotor, respectively, and φ0
is the initial phase shift. The damping of the snubber ring and the friction between the
rotor and the snubber ring in case of contact are both neglected in the present model. Also,
Machines 2024, 12, 897 5 of 18

λ is a switching function that indicates the occurrence of contact between the rotor and the
snubber ring as follows: (
1, R ⩾ γ,
λ= (4)
0, R < γ.
Hence, a contact occurs when the radial displacement R exceeds the clearance γ.
Now, the coupled second-order differential equations governing the rotor system alternate
between the linear noncontact mode and the nonlinear contact mode.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 1. Rotor–stator contact with asymmetric stator stiffness: (a) a physical model of a rotor
with an asymmetric snubber ring, (b) the contact geometry and forces acting on the rotor, (c) a
photograph of the Aberdeen rotor experimental rig, showing major components and instrumentation.
The geometrical center of the rotor is denoted as or , the geometric center of the stator is Os0 , and the
radial clearance between the rotor and stator is γ.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 6 of 18

Transforming the governing equations to the nondimensionalized form helps to com-

pare results obtained for different physical systems. Time is nondimensionalized to the
rotor’s angular velocity Ω to ease the comparison of the system behavior at different speeds.
Also, the frequency content will be nondimensionalized such that the synchronous com-
ponent will appear to be at unity in the frequency spectra which is easier to interpret for
diagnostic purposes. Displacements are nondimensionalized using the clearance γ as the
reference displacement. The following nondimensional variables are defined as follows:

d x y ρ εx εy
τ = Ωt, ′ = , x̂ = , ŷ = , ρ̂ = , ε̂ x = , ε̂ y = ,
dτ γ γ γ γ γ
Ω
r
K C m Kij
ωn = , ζ= , η= , ηm = , K̂ij = .
M 2Mωn ωn M K

Hence, the radial displacement of the rotor R can be written as:

q
R=γ ( x̂ − ε̂ x )2 + (ŷ − ε̂ y )2 = γ Z.

Therefore, the governing equations can be rewritten in terms of the nondimensional

variables as follows:
2ζ x̂ ′
 
x̂ λ 1
x̂ ′′ +



+ 2 + 2 1− K̂xx ( x̂ − ε̂ x ) + K̂xy ŷ − ε̂ y = ηm ρ̂ cos(τ + φ0 ),
η η η Z
′   (5)
2ζ ŷ ŷ λ 1
ŷ′′ +



+ 2 + 2 1− K̂yx ( x̂ − ε̂ x ) + K̂yy ŷ − ε̂ y = ηm ρ̂ sin(τ + φ0 ),
η η η Z

where, (
1, Z ⩾ 1,
λ= (6)
0, Z < 1.

3. Results and Discussion

The study begins by validating the symmetric model against those in the previous
literature. The results of the modified model are verified against the results published
in [12,24] by using the parameters shown in Table 1 and setting direct stiffness coefficients as
K̂xx = K̂yy = K̂s and cross-coupling coefficients as K̂xy = K̂yx = 0 to simulate the symmetric
stiffness case where K̂s represents the ratio between the stator stiffness and rotor stiffness.
Next,the present model results are verified againist the experimental results of the rotor rig
presented in [15]. Afterwards, several numerical investigations are carried out to study the
effect of the stiffness asymmetry on the system behaviour. Also, the effect of the interaction
between the asymmetric stiffness coefficients and system parameters on the nonlinear
dynamics of the system is studied using time waveforms, orbit plots, frequency spectra
and bifurcation diagrams. The governing equations shown in Equation (5) are solved
using Runge–Kutta solver ODE45 in MATLAB (Release 22). To accurately address the
stability of the solution for the present rotor–stator problem, careful selection of integration
tolerances is essential. In this work, relative and absolute tolerances are defined as 10−14
and 10−14 , respectively. These values are determined by gradually refining the tolerances
until consistent convergence is ensured, guaranteeing precision in the results.

Table 1. System parameters used for numerical simulation.

Parameter Value
Damping ratio, ζ 0.125
Mass ratio, ηm 0.001
Normalized unbalance radius, ρ̂ 70
Normalized static displacement in x-direction, ε̂ x 1
Normalized static displacement in y-direction, ε̂ y 0
Machines 2024, 12, 897 7 of 18

For all the results shown in this section, the initial displacements are taken as x̂0 = ŷ0 = 0.1
and the initial velocities are assumed to be equal to zero. After several iterations with different
time intervals, the nondimensional time interval ∆τ is taken as 0.01, which approximately
corresponds to ∆t = 2π/628 Ω. Lower values result in similar outcomes. Additionally, this
time interval is found to be sufficient for calculating accurate results compared to the published
results in the previous literature. Transients time waveforms are discarded before calculating the
orbit plots and bifurcation diagrams. Hence, the shown responses represent the steady-states of
the system responses.

3.1. System Response Without Stator Asymmetry

Figure 2 shows the bifurcation diagram of the nondimensional radial displacement
Z where the control parameter is the frequency ratio η. The system parameters are taken
according to Table 1 and K s is assumed to be equal to 30. In Figure 2a, the response
is shown to be periodic with the variation in rotational speed along a broad range of
frequency ratios ( η ∈ [1.25, 4]) without experiencing chaotic behaviour for the specified
set of parameters. Mostly, the response exhibits period-1 motion except for a specific
region. As shown in Figure 2b, the system response transfers from period-1 to period-3
at η = 2.4 then returns back to period-1. Next, period doubling occurs at η = 2.5 where
period-1 transforms to period-2 and then flip bifurcation occurs at around η = 2.9. This
pattern is in full agreement with the published results in [24].
Figure 3 shows time waveforms of the nondimensional radial displacement Z, the fre-
quency spectra of the horizontal and vertical responses and orbit plots of the rotor system at
different values of frequency ratio η, selected from Figure 2b and represented by dotted vertical
lines. The dashed horizontal red line in the time–history waveform represents the displacement
above which contact occurs (Z = Rγ = 1). It can be noticed that the prevailing behaviour is the
periodic response but different periodic motions appear at different frequency ratios.

Figure 2. Bifurcation diagrams of the nondimensional radial displacement Z versus the frequency
ratio η for the symmetric stator condition. (a) Bifurcation diagram. (b) Zoomed-in view of the
bifurcation diagram. The vertical dotted red lines labeled a, b, c, and d denote the locations at which
the phase portraits in Figure 3a1–d3 are plotted, respectively.

It is shown in Figure 3a1–a3 that a period-1 response is attained at η = 2, where the hori-
zontal and vertical spectra show a dominant component at synchronous speed, representing
the rotational forcing frequency. The vibration amplitude is higher in the horizontal direction,
and the orbit is shifted horizontally due to the static eccentricity ε x existing between the rotor
and stator centers along the horizontal axis. A period-2 response can be observed at η = 2.6
as shown in Figure 3b1–b3. In addition to the component at synchronous speed, the period-2
response is exhibited as a clear subharmonic frequency component at half the synchronous
speed. Since the frequency is normalized to the rotational forcing frequency, the synchronous
speed component appears at unity, and the subharmonic component appears at 0.5, as ex-
pected. Similarly, a period-3 response is shown at η = 2.44 (Figure 3c1–c3) with third-order
subharmonics at one-third, two-thirds, and four-thirds of the synchronous speed, in addi-
Machines 2024, 12, 897 8 of 18

tion to the fundamental component at synchronous speed. Period-4 is evident at η = 2.72

(Figure 3d1–d3) with fourth-order subharmonics at one-fourth, one-half, three-fourths of the
synchronous speed, etc. The results shown in Figure 3 are in full agreement with the results
published in [24].

Figure 3. Rotor radial displacement, orbit plot, and frequency spectra in horizontal and vertical direc-
tions for a rubbing system with symmetric stator stiffness at different frequency ratios. (a1–a3) η = 2,
(b1–b3) η = 2.6, (c1–c3) η = 2.44, and (d1–d3) η = 2.72. These correspond to the vertical red dotted
lines in Figure 2b. The parameters are K̂ xx = K̂yy = K̂s = 30, and x̂0 = ŷ0 = 0.1, and initial velocities
are assumed to be zero.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 9 of 18

3.2. System Response with Stator Asymmetry

The system inputs provided by [15] are used to validate the present model. The model
in [15] is not exactly the same as the present model. For instance, authors [15] account for
damping at the contact interface which is not considered in the current work. Additionally,
the contact points in the literature are evaluated using an energy-based approach, whereas
the present model employs a displacement-based approach. The complete list of parameters
can be found in Table 1 of [15].
The orbit plots for the studied three cases are presented in two rows in Figure 4.
The first row shows the results extracted from Figure 6 of [15], while the second row depicts
the corresponding results based on the present model. Figure 4 demonstrates that, despite
slight differences between the two models, the results agree within a margin of 10 microns.
Furthermore, the type of periodic response is consistent across all three cases.

Figure 4. Rotor x and y orbit plots for a rubbing system with asymmetric stator stiffness at three
different rotational speeds: (a,d) ω = 75.51 rad/s, (b,e) ω = 82.13 rad/s, and (c,f) ω = 85.10 rad/s.
Plots (a–c) are extracted from [15] (Figure 6), while plots (d,e) represent results from the present
model. The parameters are K̂ xx = 31.28, K̂yy = 42.70, and x̂0 = ŷ0 = 0.0, and the initial velocities
are assumed to be zero. Additional parameters include ϵx = 0.34, ϵy = 0.38, γ = 5 × 10−4 m,
m = 0.038 kg, M = 10.24 kg, and kr = 9.11 × 104 N/m.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 10 of 18

3.3. System Response with Stator Asymmetry

Now, the stiffness asymmetry is included in the analysis using two sets of parameters
as shown in Table 2. The first set of parameters, SP1, signifies the scenario where the
stator stiffness is higher in the horizontal direction when compared to other directions.
The second set of parameters, SP2, defines the condition where the stator is stiffer in the
vertical direction. For both cases, the cross-coupling coefficients are considered as equal,
i.e., symmetric cross-coupling stiffness. Figure 5 shows the bifurcation diagrams of the
rotor radial displacement Z for both cases where the control parameter is taken as the
frequency ratio η. To construct the shown diagrams, the damping rate ζ , mass ratio ηm ,
and normalized unbalance radius ρ̂ are taken as stated in Table 1. It may be noticed from
the zoomed-out bifurcation diagrams for both sets of stiffness parameters in Figure 5a,c
that there is a specific range (η ∈ [2, 3.3]) where the dynamic behaviour shows different
features. Inspecting the local bifurcation diagram for this range for SP1 Figure 5b shows
very rich dynamics. A series of complex dynamic behaviours exists where the response
changes from period-1 to period-3 followed by a period-2 motion. Then, A period-doubling
region starts at η = 2.65, leading to chaos that coexists with period-4 motion in the range
from η = 2.724 to η = 2.815 at which flip bifurcation occurs for the period-4 region then
period-2 motion starts at η = 2.854. For SP2, local bifurcation for this specific range of
η ∈ [2, 3.3] (see Figure 5d) shows that the system exhibits period-1 motion followed by a
very short quasi-periodic motion region that starts at (η = 2.35). Then, period doubling
occurs at η = 2.4, where the response remains at period-2 as speed increases.

Table 2. Sets of nondimensional parameters for asymmetric stator stiffness cases.

Parameter SP1 SP2

Direct stiffness coefficients K̂yy = 30, K̂ xx = 1.5K̂yy K̂yy = 30, K̂ xx = 0.25K̂yy
Cross-coupling stiffness coefficients K̂ xy = K̂yx = K̂yy K̂ xy = K̂yx = K̂ xx

The bifurcation diagram of the symmetric case in Figure 2a,b is compared with that
of the asymmetric case in Figure 5a,b for SP1. In the SP1 case, the asymmetry in stiffness
slightly affects the dimensionless speed at which the initial bifurcation commences, shifting
it from 2.39 to 2.48. In the symmetric case, this bifurcation leads to a period-3 solution.
In the asymmetric case, the results show quasiperiodic motion coexisting with period-3
motion, as shown in Figures 5b and 6e2. In the other case of asymmetry, SP2, where Kxx
is reduced to 0.25 of Kyy , the first bifurcation point appears earlier at η = 2.34, followed
by a region of quasiperiodic motion, as shown in Figure 7e2, followed by period-2 motion
instead of the period-3 motion observed in the symmetric case.
For SP1, a further increase in η results in another bifurcation at η = 2.58 from quasiperi-
odic to period-2, which is a similar trend to the symmetric case. Conversely, a completely
different behaviour is shown in SP2, where no bifurcation appears in this region, as shown
in Figure 5d. Additionally, Figure 2a shows two peaks in the bifurcation diagram at η = 1.7
and η = 3.3 for the symmetric case. These two peaks are also recognized in both SP1 and
SP2, appearing at η = 1.73 and η = 3.48 for SP1, and at η = 1.5 and η = 3 for SP2.
It is clearly shown that the system response is highly influenced by the stator asym-
metry. For SP1 (Figure 6), the system response changes in certain areas from periodic to
quasiperiodic motions. Meanwhile, in the SP2 case, the system exhibits either period-1
(see Figure 7a2) or period-2 motion (see Figure 7b2–d2), except for a very short range of
frequencies where it shows quasiperiodic behaviour (Figure 7e2), which is completely
different in comparison with the symmetric case. Inspecting the frequency spectra at this
frequency ratio η = 2.38 shows incommensurate frequency components around the second-
order subharmonic, i.e., the ratio of peaks is irrational, which is a well-known indicator of
quasiperiodic response.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 11 of 18

Figure 5. Bifurcation diagrams with the frequency ratio as the control parameter for two stiffness
asymmetry cases, (a) a bifurcation plot for SP1, (b) a zoomed-in bifurcation plot for SP1, (c) a
bifurcation plot for SP2, and (d) a zoomed-in bifurcation plot for SP2. The vertical dotted red lines
labeled a, b, c, d, and e in Figure 5b,d denote the locations at which the phase portraits in Figure 6a1–e3
and Figure 7a1–e3 are plotted, respectively.

3.4. Effect of Damping Ratio

Bifurcation diagrams of the nondimensional radial displacement versus the damping ra-
tio ζ at two different frequency ratios of η = 2.2 and η = 2.44 are shown in
Figures 8 and 9, respectively. For the symmetric stator case at η = 2.2, the response ex-
hibits chaos for low values of damping then stabilizes at ζ = 0.056 to period-1 motion
(Figure 8a). For the asymmetric stator case (SP1), the response is prominently period-1. But for
SP2, chaotic behaviour is observed at low values of damping (ζ ∈ [0.02, 0.1]). The route out
of chaos occurs through a small region of period-halving near ζ = 0.1.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 12 of 18

Figure 6. Rotor radial displacement, orbit plot and frequency spectra in horizontal and vertical
directions for a rotor with asymmetric stator stiffness (SP1) at different frequency ratios: (a1–a3) η = 2,
(b1–b3) η = 2.6, (c1–c3) η = 2.44, (d1–d3) η = 2.72, and (e1–e3) η = 2.57. These correspond to the
vertical red dotted lines in Figure 5b. The parameters are K̂yy = 30, K̂ xx = 1.5K̂yy , K̂ xy = K̂yx = K̂yy ,
and x̂0 = ŷ0 = 0.1, and initial velocities are assumed to be zero.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 13 of 18

Figure 7. Rotor radial displacement, orbit plot and frequency spectra in horizontal and vertical di-
rections for a rotor with asymmetric stator stiffness (SP2) at different frequency ratios: (a1–a3) η = 2,
(b1–b3) η = 2.6, (c1–c3) η = 2.44, (d1–d3) η = 2.72, and (e1–e3) η = 2.38. These correspond to the vertical
red dotted lines in Figure 5d. The parameters are K̂yy = 30, K̂xx = 0.25K̂yy , K̂xy = K̂yx = K̂yy , and
x̂0 = ŷ0 = 0.1, and initial velocities are assumed to be zero.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 14 of 18

Figure 8. Bifurcation diagrams for radial displacement Z with ζ as a control parameter, (a) symmetric
stator stiffness (K̂ xx = K̂yy ), (b) asymmetric stator stiffness case (SP1), (c) asymmetric stator stiffness
case (SP2), and η = 2.2.

Figure 9. Bifurcation diagrams for radial displacement Z with ζ as a control parameter, (a) symmetric
stator stiffness (K̂ xx = K̂yy ), (b) asymmetric stator stiffness case (SP1), (c) asymmetric stator stiffness
case (SP2), and η = 2.44.

At frequency ratio η = 2.44, the system with a symmetric stator (see Figure 9a)
experiences quasi-periodic response with co-existing period-3 motion followed by period-6
response that starts at ζ = 0.104, then period halving occurs to start period-3 motion at
ζ = 0.123. Then, stabilization at period-1 initiates at ζ = 0.131 with a slight decrease in
amplitude as damping increases. For the asymmetric stator case (SP1), regions of quasi-
periodic response coexist with period-2 for small values of damping and the system reaches
period-1 at ζ = 0.09 (Figure 9b).
When the stator stiffness is highest in the vertical direction (SP2), the system exhibits
chaotic behaviour followed by rich dynamics in the range of ζ ∈ [0.05, 0.1]. After exiting
chaos at ζ = 0.052, a region of period-6 motion appears then chaotic behaviour starts
at ζ = 0.0744 with coexisting period-6 response. This region ends at ζ = 0.098 when a
short quasi-periodic area occurs and afterwards, period-2 response prevails starting from
ζ = 0.11. To better demonstrate the dynamic behaviour, orbit plots at different damping
ratios are given in Figure 10. Sixth-order subharmonics, i.e., one-sixth of the synchronous
speed and its multiples, clearly appear in the frequency spectra at ζ = 0.06 (see Figure 10a).
In the range of coexisting periodic–chaotic response when ζ ∈ [0.0744, 0.098], chaos appears,
accompanied by the frequency modulation of period-6 (Figure 10b) which is often observed
in rotordynamic systems exhibiting chaos.
Machines 2024, 12, 897 15 of 18

Figure 10. Bifurcation diagram with damping ratio as control parameter for asymmetric stator
stiffness (SP2) at frequency ratio η = 2.44. Selected orbit plots and frequency spectra in horizontal and
vertical directions for different damping ratios, ζ = 0.06, ζ = 0.082, ζ = 0.1, and ζ = 0.125. Subfigures
(a–d) represent orbit plots corresponding to the vertical dotted lines in the main bifurcation diagram.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the nonlinear dynamic interactions of a rotor whirling inside a stator
(snubber ring) have been analysed via a simple 2-DOF model that takes the full asymmetry
of the stator into consideration. In such piecewise smooth dynamical systems, the gov-
erning equations are known to be strongly nonlinear in nature. The coupled equations of
motion have been nondimensionalized with respect to the rotor’s mass and then solved
numerically. Bifurcation diagrams, time histories, orbit plots and frequency spectra were
used to investigate and compare the system response with and without stator asymmetry.
The stator stiffness asymmetry was discussed involving both the direct and cross-coupling
stiffness coefficients using two sets of parameters, SP1 and SP2. The former assumed that
the stator is more stiff in the horizontal direction (i.e., K̂ xx ) in comparison to other directions,
meanwhile, the vertical stiffness K̂yy is the highest in the latter.
It was shown that considering stator asymmetry introduces significant changes in the
system dynamic behaviour. Very rich dynamics of periodic, quasi-periodic, and chaotic
responses in addition to regions of periodic and quasi-periodic zones with coexisting chaos
were shown in the bifurcation analysis. Changes in the bifurcation characteristics were
clearly observed such as shifting in periodic/chaotic areas, differences in the onset of chaos
and routes out of chaos. Period halving and jump bifurcation were identified as routes
Machines 2024, 12, 897 16 of 18

out of chaos for the parameters used. On the other hand, the system mostly switched
to chaos via quasi-periodic and period doubling routes. Frequency spectra were shown
to provide clear indicators that characterize the system response. Broad-band frequency
content was observed for chaotic responses and incommensurate frequency components
appeared clearly in quasi-periodic signatures. Periodic responses from period-1 up to
period-6 have been seen in the frequency domain as they are subharmonic components.
The system response was found to be extremely sensitive to changing system parame-
ters such as the frequency ratio and the damping ratio. For instance, in the studied range of
frequency ratios, it was clearly shown that even very small changes in rotational frequency
will give rise to completely different response and bifurcation patterns. As the damping
ratio was increased for the asymmetric cases SP1 and SP2, it was shown that the system is
brought into periodic responses sooner when compared with the symmetric case. The re-
sults emphasize that the system response is significantly affected by the introduced stator
stiffness asymmetry and its interaction with other system parameters was highlighted.
Hence, it is concluded that the influence of stator asymmetry is crucial and should be
included in the mathematical models of rotor–stator interactions. Further work will include
experimental verification of the presented model. Moreover, the effects including damping
and friction at the contact interface will be investigated in our follow up studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.V. and M.W.; Methodology, H.H.E.-M. and M.W.;
Software , H.H.E.-M. and T.A.E.-S.; Validation, H.H.E.-M.; Formal analysis, H.H.E.-M.; Investiga-
tion, H.H.E.-M., T.A.E.-S. and V.V.; Resources, V.V. and M.W.; Writing—original draft, H.H.E.-M.;
Writing—review & editing, H.H.E.-M., T.A.E.-S., V.V. and M.W.; Supervision, M.W. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The first two authors would like to highly acknowledge the financial support
presented by the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education and Helwan University of Egypt for funding
their research visit to the University of Aberdeen.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

C Viscous damping coefficient of rotor

Fnx Normal contact force component in horizontal direction
Fny Normal contact force component in vertical direction
K Rotor stiffness
Snubber ring stiffness (i = subscript denoting direction of force and j = subscript
Kij
denoting direction of displacement)
K̂ij Nondimensional stator stiffness ratio
K̂s Ratio between snubber ring symmetric stiffness and rotor stiffness
m Unbalance mass
M Rotor mass
Or0 Rotor’s center at static equilibrium position
Os0 Stator’s center at static equilibrium position
R Rotor radial displacement
t Time
x Rotor displacement in horizontal direction
x̂ Nondimensional displacement of rotor in horizontal direction
xs Snubber ring displacement in horizontal direction
X Amplitude of horizontal displacement in frequency domain
y Rotor displacement in vertical direction
ŷ Nondimensional displacement of rotor in vertical direction
ys Snubber ring displacement in vertical direction
Machines 2024, 12, 897 17 of 18

Y Amplitude of vertical displacement in frequency domain

Z Nondimensional radial displacement
γ Radial clearance between the rotor and snubber ring
εx Static eccentricity between the rotor and snubber ring centers in horizontal direction
ε̂ x Normalized static eccentricity in horizontal direction
εy Static eccentricity between the rotor and snubber ring centers in vertical direction
ε̂ y Normalized static eccentricity in vertical direction
ζ Damping ratio
η Ratio between rotational frequency and natural frequency
ηm Mass ratio
λ Switching function between contact and non-contact modes
ρ Radius of unbalance mass
ρ̂ Normalized radius of unbalance mass
τ Nondimensionalized time
φ0 Initial phase angle
ψ Angular displacement of rotor
ωn Rotor natural frequency
∆τ Nondimensional time interval
Ω Rotational frequency of rotor

References
1. Muszynska, A. Rotor-to-stationary element sub-related vibration phenomena in rotating machinery: Literature survey. Shock Vib.
Dig. 1989, 21, 3–11. [CrossRef]
2. Ahmad, S. Rotor casing contact phenomenon in rotor dynamics—Literature survey. J. Vib. Control 2010, 16, 1369–1377. [CrossRef]
3. Jacquet-Richardet, G.; Torkhani, M.; Cartraud, P.; Thouverez, F.; Baranger, T.N.; Herran, M.; Gibert, C.; Baguet, S.; Almeida, P.;
Peletan, L. Rotor to stator contacts in turbomachines. Review and application. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2013, 40, 401–420.
[CrossRef]
4. Alber, O.; Markert, R. Rotor-stator contact–overview of current research. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis,
France, 2014; Volume 16, p. 03001.
5. Prabith, K.; Krishna, I.R.P. The numerical modelling of rotor–stator rubbing in rotating machinery: A comprehensive review.
Nonlinear Dyn. 2020, 101, 1317–1363. [CrossRef]
6. Ehrich, F.F. The dynamic stability of rotor/stator radial rubs in rotating machinery. J. Eng. Ind. 1969, 91, 1025–1028. [CrossRef]
7. Childs, D.W. Rub-induced parametric excitation in rotors. J. Mech. Des. 1979, 101, 640–644. [CrossRef]
8. Beatty, R.F. Differentiating rotor response due to radial rubbing. J. Vib. Acoust. Stress Reliab. Des. 1985, 107, 151–160. [CrossRef]
9. Smalley, A. The dynamic response of rotors to rubs during startup. J. Vib. Acoust. Stress Reliab. Des. 1989, 111, 226–233. [CrossRef]
10. Pavlovskaia, E.E.; Karpenko, E.; Wiercigroch, M. Non-linear dynamic interactions of a Jeffcott rotor with preloaded snubber ring.
J. Sound Vib. 2004, 276, 361–379. [CrossRef]
11. El-Mongy, H.; El-Sayed, T.; Vaziri, V.; Wiercigroch, M. Piecewise analytical solution for rub interactions between a rotor and an
asymmetrically supported stator. In Recent Trends in Wave Mechanics and Vibrations; Dimitrovová, Z., Biswas, P., Gonçalves, R.,
Silva, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 532–539.
12. Karpenko, E.V.; Wiercigroch, M.; Cartmell, M.P. Regular and chaotic dynamics of a discontinuously nonlinear rotor system. Chaos
Solitons Fractals 2002, 13, 1231–1242. [CrossRef]
13. Popprath, S.; Ecker, H. Nonlinear dynamics of a rotor contacting an elastically suspended stator. J. Sound Vib. 2007, 308, 767–784.
[CrossRef]
14. Patel, T.; Darpe, A. Use of full spectrum cascade for rotor rub identification. Adv. Vib. Eng. 2009, 8, 139–151.
15. Chávez, J.P.; Hamaneh, V.V.; Wiercigroch, M. Modelling and experimental verification of an asymmetric Jeffcott rotor with radial
clearance. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 334, 86–97. [CrossRef]
16. Varney, P.; Green, I. Nonlinear phenomena, bifurcations, and routes to chaos in an asymmetrically supported rotor–stator contact
system. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 336, 207–226. [CrossRef]
17. Chipato, E.; Shaw, A.; Friswell, M. Frictional effects on the nonlinear dynamics of an overhung rotor. J. Commun. Nonlinear Sci.
Numer. Simul. 2019, 78, 104875. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, N.; Jiang, D.; Xu, H. Effects of Rub-Impact on Vibration Response of a Dual-Rotor System-Theoretical and Experimental
Investigation. Exp. Tech. 2019, 44, 299–311. [CrossRef]
19. Taher, G.A.F.; Rabeih, E.A.; El-Mongy, H.H. Experimental and numerical study of lateral vibration of a rotor–stator rubbing
system. Int. J. Dyn. Control 2024, 12, 3139–3154. [CrossRef]
20. Patel, T.H.; Darpe, A.K. Coupled bending-torsional vibration analysis of rotor with rub and crack. J. Sound Vib. 2009, 326, 740–752.
[CrossRef]
Machines 2024, 12, 897 18 of 18

21. Al-bedoor, B.O. Transient torsional and lateral vibrations of unbalanced rotors with rotor-to-stator rubbing. J. Sound Vib. 2000,
229, 627–645. [CrossRef]
22. Choy, F.; Padovan, J. Non-linear transient analysis of rotor-casing rub events. J. Sound Vib. 1987, 113, 529–545. [CrossRef]
23. Ma, H.; Zhao, Q.; Zhao, X.; Han, Q.; Wen, B. Dynamic characteristics analysis of a rotor–stator system under different rubbing
forms. Appl. Math. Model. 2015, 39, 2392–2408. [CrossRef]
24. Karpenko, E.V.; Wiercigroch, M.; Pavlovskaia, E.E.; Cartmell, M.P. Piecewise approximate analytical solutions for a Jeffcott rotor
with a snubber ring. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2002, 44, 475–488. [CrossRef]
25. Kim, Y.; Noah, S. Bifurcation analysis for a modified Jeffcott rotor with bearing clearances. Nonlinear Dyn. 1990, 1, 221–241.
[CrossRef]
26. Wilkes, J.C.; Childs, D.W.; Dyck, B.J.; Phillips, S.G. The numerical and experimental characteristics of multimode dry-friction
whip and whirl. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 2010, 132, 052503. [CrossRef]
27. Praveen Krishna, I.; Padmanabhan, C. Experimental and numerical investigations on rotor–stator rub. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2018, 232, 3200–3212. [CrossRef]
28. Goldman, P.; Muszynska, A. Chaotic behavior of rotor/stator systems with rubs. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 1994, 116, 692–701.
[CrossRef]
29. Lin, F.; Schoen, M.; Korde, U. Numerical investigation with rub-related vibration in rotating machinery. J. Vib. Control 2001,
7, 833–848. [CrossRef]
30. Sawicki, J.T.; Padovan, J.; Al-Khatib, R. The dynamics of rotor with rubbing. Int. J. Rotating Mach. 1999, 5, 295–304. [CrossRef]
31. Zheng, Z.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, D.; Ye, X. Effects of Stator Stiffness, Gap Size, Unbalance, and Shaft’s Asymmetry on the Steady-State
Response and Stability Range of an Asymmetric Rotor with Rub-Impact. Shock Vib. 2019, 2019, 6162910. [CrossRef]
32. Cao, J.; Ma, C.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, S. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of fractional order rub-impact rotor system. J Commun. Nonlinear Sci.
Numer. Simul. 2011, 16, 1443–1463. [CrossRef]
33. Hou, L.; Chen, Y.; Cao, Q. Nonlinear vibration phenomenon of an aircraft rub-impact rotor system due to hovering flight.
Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2014, 19, 286–297. [CrossRef]
34. Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Gao, Z. Nonlinear analysis of a rub-impact rotor with random stiffness under random excitation. Adv. Mech.
Eng. 2016, 8, 1687814016668090. [CrossRef]
35. Ehrich, F.F. Subharmonic vibration of rotors in bearing clearance. In Mechanical Engineering; ASME-AMER SOC MECHANICAL
ENG 345 E 47TH ST: New York, NY, USA, 1966; Volume 88, p. 56.
36. Bently, D. Forced sub-rotative speed dynamic action of rotating machinery. In Proceedings of the Fourth Turbomachinery
Symposium, College Station, TX, USA, 25–27 September 1974; Volume 96, p. 60.
37. Childs, D.W. Fractional-frequency rotor motion due to nonsymmetric clearance effects. J. Eng. Power 1982, 104, 533–541.
[CrossRef]
38. Ehrich, F.F. High order subharmonic response of high speed rotors in bearing clearance. J. Vib. Acoust. Stress. Reliab. Des. 1988,
110, 9–16. [CrossRef]
39. Von Groll, G.t.; Ewins, D.J. A mechanism of low subharmonic response in rotor/stator contact—Measurements and simulations.
J. Vib. Acoust. 2002, 124, 350–358. [CrossRef]
40. Chu, F.; Lu, W. Experimental observation of nonlinear vibrations in a rub-impact rotor system. J. Sound Vib. 2005, 283, 621–643.
[CrossRef]
41. Ma, H.; Shi, C.; Han, Q.; Wen, B. Fixed-point rubbing fault characteristic analysis of a rotor system based on contact theory. Mech.
Syst. Signal Process. 2013, 38, 137–153. [CrossRef]
42. Mokhtar, M.A.; Darpe, A.K.; Gupta, K. Analysis of stator vibration response for the diagnosis of rub in a coupled rotor-stator
system. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 144, 392–406. [CrossRef]
43. Tang, Y.; Lin, F.; Zou, Q. Dynamical behavior analysis of rubbing rotor system under asymmetric oil film force. Math. Probl. Eng.
2019, 2019, 1253646. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.