Adaptive Influence Coefficient

Control of Single-Plane Active

Stephen W. Dyer
BalaDyne Corporation,
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-2254
Jun Ni
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136
Balancing Systems for Rotating
Machinery
Rotating unbalance is a costly source of harmful vibration affecting a wide variety of
applications such as high-speed machine tools and turbomachinery. Active balancing
technology allows adjustment of a machine’s balance state while conditions change as the
machine continues to operate. An adaptive control law for single-plane active balancing
is presented here for control of steady-state rotation-synchronous vibration. The adaptive
control method, based on the well known ‘‘influence coefficient’’approach, requires no a
priori modeling or estimation of plant dynamics. A control ‘‘gain’’ parameter is intro-
duced and shown to enhance stability robustness of the nonadaptive portion of the control
law. A recursive on-line system identification method is presented that uses exponential
weighted averaging to mitigate the effects of measurement noise and system nonlineari-
ties. Experimental results establish the efficacy of the adaptive control system even in the
face of certain nonlinear and time-varying rotordynamic systems.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.1349554兴

Introduction ing transmitted forces or rotor deflections. Typically, however,

Problem Motivation. High-speed rotating machines are inte-
gral components of processes in a wide variety of industries. Such
applications include machine tools for grinding, turning, and mill-
ing of automotive and aerospace components. Another major ap-
plication is turbomachinery in petro-chemical manufacturing and
land, air, and sea-based power generation systems. Rotating un-
balance is a major source of harmful vibration affecting precision
and reliability in these industries.
Off-line balancing techniques cannot address field installation
unbalance problems occurring due to changing conditions such as
component erosion or deposition, flexible rotor effects, mass or
stiffness changes, etc. High-speed machining processes, for ex-
ample, utilize frequent automatic tool changes. Tools and tool-
holders for high-speed machining are often balanced prior to in-
sertion into a spindle. However, toolholder clamping tolerances
and drawbar assembly clearances may still result in unbalanced
spindle assemblies. In these cases of time-varying unbalance dis-
turbances, active balance control can provide an effective vibra-
tion control solution.
State of the Art. Active balancing technology aims to pro-
vide real-time control of unbalance-induced vibration 共UIV兲 in the
presence of unknown and time-varying unbalance disturbances.
State-of-the-art active balancing systems, however, cannot always
respond quickly and accurately enough to be viable in many pro-
cesses. Extensive a priori modeling or identification of plant dy-
namics required for most laboratory systems limits their practical
commercial value. Nonadaptive control systems, furthermore, are
not necessarily robust in the face of time-varying and nonlinear
dynamics.
Active structural control systems utilizing ‘‘stationary reference
frame’’ actuators such as piezoelectric, hydraulic or magnetic
bearing devices offer one approach to controlling unbalance-
induced vibration 关1,2兴. Systems using these stationary-fixed ac-
tuators usually attempt to regulate one of two things, either bear-
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division for publicaiton in the
JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
June 1999; revised February 2000. Associate Editor: R. Furness.
forces and deflections due to rotating unbalance cannot both be
controlled simultaneously using stationary actuators. Active bal-
ancing, on the other hand, incorporates balance mass actuators to
generate forces in the rotating frame. Such actuators, if placed
appropriately, can allow the simultaneous reduction of both trans-
mitted bearing forces and rotating deflections. Although active
balancing vibration control is strictly limited to the rotation-
synchronous frequency, balance mass actuators can be engineered
to remain in a fixed state without external power. These benefits
can often justify the use of active balancing.
The first ‘‘in-process’’ balancing systems were actually passive
devices that took advantage of the inherent 180 degree phase shift
between unbalance and rotor displacement above first critical
speed 关3兴. Van de Vegte 关4兴 proposed active balancing systems
utilizing DC servomotors and lead screws to change shaft balance
state. Trial-and-error control methods have been proposed 关5,6兴
that respond relatively slowly and do not necessarily guarantee
convergence to minimum vibration levels, especially at speeds
close to critical speeds. Other strategies incorporate nonadaptive
influence coefficient based control with no balance correction
state feedback 关7兴.
Lee and Kim 关8兴 showed the efficacy of the single-plane active
balancing approach experimentally with the implementation of a
manually controlled battery-powered active balancing device.
Further work 关9兴 utilized finite element modeling to generate in-
fluence coefficient estimates and compute initial 共trial兲 balance
corrections. A ‘‘squeezing’’ control then incorporated on-line es-
timation using the latest, and initial vibration and correction
states.
Scope of Research. Bishop 关10兴 addressed the concept of ac-
tive balancing of a flexible rotor and proposed that one balance
plane would normally suffice. His conclusion was based on the
assumption that, at any given rotational speed at which synchro-
nous vibration is high, only one mode dominates rotor response.
An active balancer could then be used to control the dominant
mode with negligible effect on other modes. Although this condi-
tion is not necessarily met in high-speed spindle dynamics, if the
active balance plane is located close to the major source of re-
sidual unbalance, then one balance plane would typically be ef-

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering MAY 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 291
Copyright © 2001 by ASME

Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Schematic of active balancing system for high-speed
machining spindles
fective. The further desire for simplicity and cost-effectiveness in
implementing active balancing systems in industry means that
single-plane active balancing is often sensible. Therefore, the
scope of this research was limited to single-plane active balancing
systems. Extending the methods to the more complex multiple-
plane balancing problem is left for future work.
To date, active balancing control strategies described in the
literature are all based on control at a fixed or slowly varying shaft
rotational speed. Active balance state adjustments are performed
much faster than rotational speed changes, and much slower than
rotordynamic transient response. For this research also, only the
steady-state forced vibration response was used as feedback to the
active control system.
This paper presents an adaptive control strategy that provides
steady-state active balancing convergence without requiring a pri-
ori modeling or estimation of plant dynamics. An introduction to
the components of an active balancing system is given and the
concept of ‘‘influence coefficients’’ reviewed. The stability crite-
rion is shown for a simple nonadaptive influence coefficient based
control law that includes a robustness-enhancing control ‘‘gain’’
parameter. A recursive on-line system identification method is
introduced that uses exponential weighted averaging to mitigate
the effects of measurement noise and system nonlinearities. Ex-
perimental results are shown for systems with nonlinear and time-
varying dynamics.
Components of Active Balancing System
The goal of the active balancing system is to minimize steady
state synchronous vibration while a machine continues operating
regardless of unknown and varying residual unbalance distribu-
tions. An active balancing system is made up of: 共1兲 an active
balancing mass actuation device that mounts permanently to the
rotating shaft; 共2兲 sensors which measure vibration and balance
correction state; and 共3兲 the controller as shown in Fig. 1.
For many rotating machines it is possible to roughly predict the
axial location of the unbalance disturbance. Unbalance in high-
speed machining spindles, for example, is often concentrated at
the tool/toolholder location at the nose of the spindle. By placing
an active balancing device close to that location of the major
source of system forcing, single-plane active balancing is likely to
be successful at controlling UIV.
Since active balancing can only affect the shaft synchronous
frequency vibration, the raw vibration signal must be filtered to
obtain the synchronous frequency component. To obtain this
complex-valued Fourier coefficient, vibration data is sampled and
then convolved with the shaft synchronous rotation phasor as il-
lustrated in Fig. 2.
The synchronous reference phasor must be generated using a
292 Õ Vol. 123, MAY 2001
Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 2 Vibration error signal demodulated to obtain the shaft
rotation-synchronous frequency phasor
fixed phase reference on the rotating shaft. This filtered output of
the vibration transducer is the ‘‘error’’ signal that is to be can-
celled by the active control system.
The balance correction vector can also be represented as a com-
plex number where the phase represents the lag of the balance
correction from a fixed reference on the rotating shaft.
Influence Coefficient-Based Control
The lateral rotordynamics of a flexible rotating system in re-
sponse to unbalance can, in general, be effectively represented by
a discrete set of linear differential equations. Including gyroscopic
effects, the equations for the unbalance response of a discrete
viscously damped anisotropic stator system at a constant rota-
tional speed ␻ can be written in matrix form 关11兴 as
关 M 兴 兵 ẍ 其 ⫹ 共关 C 兴 ⫹ ␻ 关 G 兴 兲 兵 ẋ 其 ⫹ 共关 K 兴 ⫹ ␻ 关 C r 兴 兲 兵 x 其
⫽␻2 再 Re共 兵 Ue i 共 ␻ t⫹ ␣ 兲 其 兲
Im共 兵 Ue i 共 ␻ t⫹ ␣ 兲 其 兲 冎 (1)
where x is the generalized displacement of each degree of freedom
and 关M兴, 关C兴, 关G兴, 关K兴 and 关 C r 兴 are respectively the mass, damp-
ing, gyroscopic, stiffness and rotating frame damping matrices.
The forcing term in the differential equation is made up of the real
and imaginary 共or ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘quadrature’’兲 components of U,
the discretized unbalance distribution 共consisting of ‘‘static’’ and
‘‘moment’’ unbalances兲 at the appropriate phase angles ␣. As the
rotational speed ␻ tends to zero, the left portion of this matrix
equation should be recognizable as the typical nonrotating discrete
linear dynamic system.
Once the elements of Eq. 共1兲 are determined 共through experi-
mental or analytical means兲, the dynamic response of a given
degree of freedom to unbalance at a given location can be solved
to obtain the steady-state unbalance response over the operating
speed range. The steady state solution can be found numerically
关12兴 or analytically by assuming a sinusoid response, substituting
the assumed solution into the differential equations, and solving
the resulting algebraic equation 关13兴. The steady-state response of
a certain degree of freedom to unbalance at given locations can be
represented by ‘‘Influence Coefficients.’’ These are simply the
complex-valued transfer functions, evaluated at the appropriate
rotational speeds, between unbalance and dynamic response.
At a steady operating speed, the synchronous vibration ‘‘error’’
output at a given discrete time step k is assumed to be a linear
function of the effect of the active balance input and the cumu-
lated effect of all rotor-synchronous disturbances as indicated in
Eq. 共2兲.
e k ⫽c 共 ␻ 兲 w k ⫹d (2)
where w k is the complex balance correction 共units of unbalance兲
at time step k, c( ␻ ) is the complex-valued influence coefficient
共units of vibration per unit unbalance兲 of balance correction on
Transactions of the ASME
 error sensor output at speed ␻, and d is the disturbance 共vibration
units兲 contributing to error measured at the sensor. This relation-
ship forms the basis for the well-known influence coefficient off-
line balancing method 关14兴.
The active balancing controller should command the balance
weight correction w k⫹1 to achieve the goal of the error signal at
control iteration k⫹1 being exactly zero. Assuming that the dis-
turbance does not change as fast as the control update, the neces-
sary control law can be derived. The single-plane control formu-
lation, similar to that used by magnetic bearing researchers 关15兴 is
given by:
ek
w k⫹1 ⫽w k ⫺ (3)
c共 ␻ 兲
Note that although the balance correction vector w k and vibration
error phasor e k can be measured, the influence coefficient c( ␻ )
must be estimated. This could be accomplished through precise
modeling or experimental tests of the system. The estimated in-
fluence coefficient, designated as ĉ, is then used in place of the
actual influence coefficient c( ␻ ) in the control law of Eq. 共3兲. Fig. 3 Single-plane active balancing control stable for all val-
ues of „ ␣ c Õ ĉ … falling within the unit circle in the right half com-
plex plane „ R Ë1…
Use of ‘‘Gain’’ Parameter to Improve Nonadaptive
Control Stability
The stability of this nonadaptive control law depends on the
accuracy of the influence coefficient estimate. Researchers have
冏
R⫽ 1⫺ ␣
c
ĉ
冏⬍1 (12)
derived the stability criterion for a similar nonadaptive control for This criterion can be represented graphically in the complex
magnetic bearing systems. To further enhance stability margin, plane as shown in Fig. 3.
however, a gain parameter ␣ (0⬍ ␣ ⭐1) is proposed here to be From Fig. 3, one can see how the control gain parameter ␣ can
added to the control law of Eq. 共3兲 such that enhance robustness. For the case in which the actual influence
ek coefficient does not change during control convergence, it can be
w k⫹1 ⫽w k ⫺ ␣ (4) shown, based on Eq. 共12兲, that the nonadaptive control law of Eq.
ĉ 共4兲 is stable if and only if
This gain parameter ␣ can improve control robustness to errors
兩 ĉ 兩
in the influence coefficient estimate ĉ. We can, without loss of ␣ ⬍2 cos共 ␪ c ⫺ ␪ ĉ 兲 (13)
generality, consider the disturbance d to be represented by the 兩c兩
influence of a hypothetical unbalance u 共which may include any where 兩c兩 and 兩 ĉ 兩 are the magnitudes of the actual and the esti-
synchronous forcing, not just unbalance兲 acting through some cu- mated influence coefficients and ␪ c and ␪ ĉ are their respective
mulative influence coefficient c u such that phase angles. Since ␣ is defined to be greater than zero, if the
d⫽cc u u (5) phase angle of the influence coefficient estimate lies between ⫾90
deg 共noninclusive兲 of the actual influence coefficient phase angle
Equation 共2兲 can then be written 共i.e., the real part of the quotient c/ĉ is greater than zero兲, then
e k ⫽c 共 w k ⫹c u u 兲 (6) there exists a gain ␣ for which the control is stable.
The convergence of the controlled error from the initial state e 0
We can define a cumulative forcing term v k where to zero is governed by Eq. 共11兲. It is clear that although small
v k ⫽w k ⫹c u u (7) values for ␣ enhance stability robustness, they also slow down
control convergence rate. It is also clear that an accurate estimate
Substituting Eq. 共7兲 into Eq. 共6兲 gives of the influence coefficient reduces the necessity to be conserva-
tive in choosing the gain ␣ for stability robustness reasons. There-
e k ⫽c v k (8)
fore, an on-line estimation strategy can be employed to ensure
Again assuming the disturbance u and influence coefficients c and accurate influence coefficient estimates regardless of changing or
c u do not change over one control iteration, we can use Eq. 共8兲 nonlinear dynamics.
and rearrange Eq. 共7兲 for both control iterations k and k⫹1 in Eq.
共4兲 giving the relationship: On-Line Estimation of Influence Coefficient
c If the balance correction state is measurable, plant input and
v k⫹1 ⫽ v k ⫺ ␣ v (9) output information is available with which to estimate the influ-
ĉ k
ence coefficient during each control iteration. The proposed ap-

冉
v k⫹1 ⫽ 1⫺ ␣
c
v
ĉ k冊 (10)
proach for accomplishing the estimation is a recursive exponen-
tially weighted averaging method. This method is based on using
the current and most recent previous measurements to calculate
The recursive forcing of Eq. 共10兲, combined with Eq. 共8兲 yields the instantaneous value of the influence coefficient using the fol-
the controlled vibration error history lowing formula:

冉
e k⫹1 ⫽ 1⫺ ␣
c
ĉ 冊 k⫹1
e0 (11) c new ⫽
e k ⫺e k⫺1
w k ⫺w k⫺1
(14)

It then follows that the single-plane active balancing control is Previous researchers have utilized nonrecursive and recursive
asymptotically stable, for a constant influence coefficient c, if and least squares estimation 关16兴 using data from every control itera-
only if: tion in past history. This has the effect of estimating the average

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering MAY 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 293

Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 influence coefficient over time without responding well to time-
varying dynamics. Other work used the initially measured input
and output along with the current measurements 关9兴, compared to
the most recent and current measurements used for this work. In
the former estimation technique, if the plant dynamics or unbal-
ance disturbance change, or are nonlinear, this method may lead
to control instability or, at the very least, slower control conver-
gence. Furthermore, no provision is made to mitigate the effects
of measurement noise.
Assuming sufficient excitation 共i.e., sufficient change in the
control input w k from iteration to iteration兲, the computed value
c new will be nonsingular. 共A supervisory method will be discussed
later that ‘‘turns off’’ estimation in certain situations where insuf-
ficient excitation persists.兲 However, this estimation formula is
also directly subject to the noise present in measuring e and w.
Therefore, it may not be desirable to throw out all previously
estimated information of the influence coefficient. To mitigate the
effect of measurement noise, an exponentially weighted recursive
average can be used to update the influence coefficient. The up-
dated influence coefficient used in computing the next control step
is then estimated as

ĉ k ⫽ 共 1⫺ ␤ 兲 ĉ k⫺1 ⫹ ␤ 冉 e k ⫺e k⫺1
w k ⫺w k⫺1 冊 (15) Fig. 4 Influence coefficient estimation performance for vari-
ous values of the ␤ ‘‘Forgetting Factor’’
where 0⭐ ␤ ⭐1. The ␤ parameter is a ‘‘forgetting factor’’ that
governs the extent of control system adaptivity. When ␤ ⫽0, no
weight is given to the newly calculated influence coefficient and
the control system is the same as the nonadaptive system dis-
cussed previously. When ␤ is close to one, the adaptive controller
w k⫹1 ⫽w k ⫺ ␣ 冉冊
ek
ĉ k
(18)

places more weight on the most recently estimated influence co-
efficient and tends to ignore previous estimates.
The forgetting factor ␤ can be chosen to provide an optimum
trade-off between estimation sensitivity to measurement noise,
and speed of estimation convergence. For the stationary case after
the estimation has substantially converged, the statistical variance
of the exponentially weighted influence coefficient estimate can
be defined as a function of the variance of c new . Assuming that
the new measurement is independent of the past estimate, the
variance of the estimate is given by:
where ĉ k is given in Eq. 共15兲. The block diagram form of the
controller is shown in Fig. 5.
When the magnitude of the change in balance correction vector
兩 w k ⫺w k⫺1 兩 approaches zero, the estimation of ĉ k becomes singu-
lar. This could lead to ‘‘bursts’’ of spurious estimates and the
balance weights being commanded to non-ideal positions. Though
the estimation and control would likely re-converge after a brief
period, such an event is undesirable and could lead temporarily to
harmful vibration levels. Further complexity could be added to the
control law of Eq. 共18兲 to vary the control and estimation param-

冉 冊
eters ␣ and ␤ in real-time so that the estimation Eq. 共15兲 did not
␤ become singular. For this work, however, a rule-based supervi-
Var 关 ĉ k 兴 ⫽ Var 关 c new 兴 . (16)
2⫺ ␤ sory strategy was chosen. On-line variation of adaptive param-
eters will be left for future study.
Thus, the estimation variance can be reduced by selecting a low
The supervisory strategy used for these experiments was to
value for ␤. For values of ␤ close to unity, the estimation variance
‘‘turn off’’ the estimation whenever the change in control vectors
approaches the variance of the calculated parameter c new . This
兩 w k ⫺w k⫺1 兩 fell below some predetermined level. This level was
relationship is shown in Fig. 4a.
chosen based on the balance correction resolution and measure-
The estimation will ‘‘track’’ the actual influence coefficient c as
ment noise of the balance correction vector. The control was de-
it varies over time. The disadvantage of choosing a low forgetting
factor ␤ is that estimation convergence rate is reduced. For the
case of a step change in the actual influence coefficient to a new
constant value, the influence estimation convergence is governed
by the equation
E 关 ĉ k 兴 ⫽c⫹ 共 ĉ 0 ⫺c 兲共 1⫺ ␤ 兲 k (17)
where c is the actual influence coefficient, ĉ 0 is the initial esti-
mate, and E 关 ĉ k 兴 is the expected value of the influence coefficient
estimate after k̂ iterations. The number of estimation iterations
required for 95 percent convergence of the estimate for various ␤
values is plotted in Fig. 4b. Higher ␤ results in faster estimation
convergence. For systems that have slowly varying dynamics and
high measurement noise, a low ␤ value is best. For highly non-
linear or rapidly varying dynamic systems, a larger ␤ value would
be necessary for fast control convergence.

Recursive Supervisory Adaptive Control Law

With the addition of the control gain ␣ and the on-line influence
coefficient estimation, the adaptive single-plane recursive control
law is given by Fig. 5 Adaptive influence coefficient control block diagram

294 Õ Vol. 123, MAY 2001 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 6 Flow chart of experimental single-plane active balanc-
ing control system
activated whenever the vibration error level fell below a preset
limit. When deactivated, the controller could continue to monitor
the vibration error and reactivate the control and estimation when
the error exceeded a certain limit. The limit level included some
‘‘hysteresis’’ to prevent annoying on-off cycles of the controller.
Thus, the vibration error limit at which the controller turned back
on was somewhat higher than the limit at which the controller
turned off. A flow chart of this supervisory strategy is shown in
Fig. 6.
Such a supervisory control strategy is important for machine
tool applications as active balance corrections should only be per-
formed prior to, not during, metal cutting. The balancing system
was configured so that it could receive an ‘‘activate’’ command
and, after successful control of vibration error below the limit
level, would deactivate itself. Vibration error, however, would be
monitored continuously for history logging purposes.
Experimental Results of Single-Plane Adaptive Control
Experimental System Configuration. The adaptive control
law derived above in Eq. 共18兲 was implemented for a high-speed
machining spindle active balancing system. The components of
the active balancing system tested are shown in Fig. 1. The bal-
ance mass actuator used for the experiments detailed in this paper
was an electromagnetically actuated active balancing device 关17兴.
This device was fixed to the rotating shaft and contained two
unbalanced rotors that could be quickly positioned in 60 discrete
angular increments relative to the rotating shaft to achieve the
desired balance correction magnitude and phase angle. Each bal-
ance rotor had approximately 100 g-mm of unbalance so that the
total balance correction capacity of the device was about 200
g-mm. Power to the rotating ‘‘stepper’’ device was passed mag-
netically across an air gap from stationary coil assemblies
mounted on the spindle housing. Permanent magnets locked the
balance rotors to the shaft whenever power was not applied, even
during fast spindle accelerations.
The system was tested on two different spindles with similar
results. Test spindle 1 was a 23,700 rpm, 1 kW air-cooled spindle.
Test spindle 2, shown in the photograph in Fig. 7, was a 15,000
rpm, 75 kW liquid-cooled spindle. The placement of the active
balancing device and sensors on test spindle 2 are also indicated
in Fig. 7.
The balancing device was retro-fit into the labyrinth seal and
bearing clamping area of the existing spindle design. Therefore,
the balancer had no effect on the bearing locations, diameters or
the overhang of the spindle gage line. The addition of the balanc-
ing device increased the spindle rotating mass by 1.1 kg, about 2.5
percent of the original 45.9 kg rotating mass. Rotordynamic
analyses predicted the placement of this additional inertia would
result in a change of less than 1 percent in the frequencies of any
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 7 Experimental setup of single plane active balancing
system on test spindle 2 mounted in a high-speed machining
center
of the first three shaft flexural modes. Therefore, it was concluded
that the addition of the balancing device would not significantly
change the dynamic sensitivity of the spindle.
A Hall Effect sensor detected a fixed magnetic target on the
rotating shaft to compute spindle rotational speed and to act as a
phase reference. The synchronous vibration error phasor was
computed each control iteration as discussed previously. 32
samples of spindle housing vibration 共measured with a piezoelec-
tric accelerometer兲 were obtained every spindle revolution with
sampling synchronized to spindle rotation. Data from multiple
spindle revolutions 共typically six兲 were then time-synchronous av-
eraged to provide additional filtering of noise and nonsynchronous
components.
Balance correction was measured by detecting the passing of a
magnet target on each balance rotor by stationary Hall Effect sen-
sors. The phase lag of these events compared to the shaft phase
reference target was calculated to determine the angular location
of each balance rotor.
Results of Control of Nonlinear ‘‘Hardening’’ System. Re-
sults of the single-plane active balancing tests showed the efficacy
of the adaptive control approach. Test spindle 1 was used to test
the adaptive control system robustness in the presence of nonlin-
ear dynamics. The spindle exhibited a ‘‘hardening’’ stiffness ef-
fect when vibrating at large amplitudes. At the test rotational
speed, the spindle dynamic stiffness was about two times greater
at high unbalance levels than at low unbalance levels. A nonadap-
tive linear influence coefficient based control algorithm would
generally have difficulty achieving low vibration in the presence
of such a harsh nonlinearity. Control stability may also be in
question depending on the initial conditions. For the test described
here, an initial estimate of the influence coefficient magnitude and
phase in the range of previously measured values was supplied to
the controller. Figure 8 shows how the measured spindle housing
vibration at the operating speed of 10,000 rpm was reduced to an
acceptable level by the adaptive controller. Adaptive control pa-
rameters ␣ ⫽0.9 and ␤ ⫽0.75 were used in each of the experi-
ments presented here.
Figure 8 shows that vibration was controlled to below the low
limit in two balance correction iterations. The time required for
the vibration data sampling, estimation, and control computation
is evident by noting the time between the end of the first balance
iteration and the start of the second 共observable when the vibra-
tion begins to decrease again just before one second兲. A portion of
this time between balance weight positioning was allotted as a
fixed delay to allow the transient vibration to settle.
An interesting and surprising side benefit of actively balancing
the ‘‘hardening’’ nonlinear system was the broad frequency band
effectiveness of the synchronous vibration control. Since the
available forcing of the active balancing system can only occur
synchronous to the machine rotation, active balancing in general
MAY 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 295
 Fig. 8 Measured spindle housing vibration during active bal-
ancing of nonlinear system
can only control synchronous vibration. However, for nonlinear
systems, large unbalances can excite nonlinear effects that appear
at higher harmonic frequencies. Therefore, by controlling syn-
chronous vibration, these broadband vibrations can also be signifi-
cantly diminished. This previously unanticipated result is shown
in Fig. 9, a time-frequency graph of vibration during a single-
plane active balancing test.
Note that the rotor-synchronous component is the dominant fre-
quency component of vibration. Other integer and half-integer
vibration harmonics also appear prior to active balancing.
After active balancing was completed the synchronous vibra-
tion component was dramatically reduced. Furthermore, the
higher harmonics were also eliminated due to the reduction of the
synchronous component and the subsequent nonlinear effects.
Tests of Control with Time-Varying Dynamics. Another
important test of the adaptive control system is its robustness to
changes in plant dynamics. As described previously, rotating ma-
chine dynamics can vary over time due to changing operating
environment, degradation or damage of components, or various
other reasons. This tendency for rotordynamics to change appre-
ciably highlights the need for a robust adaptive control strategy.
In the case of high-speed machining spindles, different tool
inertia and varying machine configuration can result in significant
variation of the system dynamics. The most typical scenario for
time-varying dynamics on a machine tool would be an abrupt step
change in both machine dynamics and unbalance disturbance after
a tool change. Thus, the ‘‘time-varying’’ characteristic is that the
dynamics are unknown and the influence coefficient estimate
could be inaccurate at the beginning of the next active balancing
cycle. The performance of the single-plane adaptive active balanc-
Fig. 9 Measured time-frequency spectrum of spindle housing
vibration showing broadband effect of active balancing of non-
linear system
296 Õ Vol. 123, MAY 2001
Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 10 Measured spindle housing vibration during single-
plane adaptive active balancing with inaccurate initial influence
coefficient estimate
ing system was tested for the worst case scenario by providing the
control system with an erroneous initial estimate of the system
influence coefficient. The results of the test with the spindle op-
erating at about 10,000 rpm are shown in Fig. 10.
It is evident that the erroneous initial influence coefficient esti-
mate caused the controller to move the balance weights in the
‘‘wrong’’ direction, causing a temporary increase in vibration.
After each control iteration, however, new input-output data was
utilized in a weighted average to re-estimate the system unbalance
response vector. After four control iterations and less than three
seconds, the active balancing system controlled vibration to below
the preset low limit. The controller then had acquired, or
‘‘learned,’’ the spindle dynamic response at that operating speed
during the exercising of control. Thus, the active balancing system
could be used as a probe to measure and track the inherent dy-
namic response of a system. Such data may contain useful diag-
nostic information about the dynamic bearing stiffness and effec-
tive rotating inertia, etc.
If balancing were again required for the same operating speed
and machine configuration the control system would be able to
reject new disturbances much more quickly. Results of a test of
the active balancing system after such adaptive ‘‘learning’’ are
shown in Fig. 11.
The test results shown in Fig. 11 indicate how quickly the
single-plane control system can respond when an accurate esti-
mate of the influence coefficient vector is available.
Results of Control at Multiple Rotational Speeds. A test of
the active balancing system on test spindle 2 resulted in signifi-
cantly decreased vibration at all speeds. An unbalance of 70 g-mm
Fig. 11 Measured spindle housing vibration during single-
plane active balancing after adaptive system ‘‘learning’’
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 12 Measured spindle housing vibration before and after
adaptive active balancing at various spindle speeds „70 g-mm
unbalance at tool tip…
was inserted at the tip of a 210 mm long, 50.8 mm diameter tool.
The spindle was then run at constant speeds from 5,000 rpm up to
its maximum operating speed of 15,000 rpm and active balancing
performed. The synchronous vibration was recorded before and
after active balancing at each speed and is shown in Fig. 12.
The spindle manufacture considered 2 mm/sec to be acceptable
but less than 1 mm/sec of spindle housing vibration desirable to
protect spindle bearing life. The housing vibration due to a given
unbalance will vary significantly depending on spindle speed and
mounting configuration. Therefore the vibration specifications are
not necessarily valid as absolute spindle damage indicators. They
are simply intended to provide end-users with a general and easily
measurable rule-of-thumb. During this experiment, the adaptive
active balancing system reduced synchronous vibration by 79–99
percent. The control system was able to maintain synchronous
vibration at or below 0.5 mm/sec even when initial vibration well
exceeded ‘‘acceptable’’ levels. Background vibration ‘‘noise’’
and the positioning resolution of the balance mass actuators de-
termined the minimum achievable controlled vibration level.
Spindle housing vibration was used as control feedback in these
experiments. However, other vibration sensors could be used with
the same control approach. If tool tip displacement sensors were
utilized, the control system would minimize tool runout instead of
spindle housing motion. This may be desirable to reduce the effect
of unbalance on machining precision. In many cases, depending
on the proximity of the active balancing device relative to the
major source of unbalance, use of the more convenient spindle
housing motion sensors may also result in reduced tool tip runout.
Because the adaptive control computes the influence coefficient
on-line, it would also be possible to simultaneously estimate the
residual unbalance force. The active balancing system could then
be used to suppress this force to some predefined fraction of the
expected machining forces.
The cost-justification of the active balancing system for a given
process will derive from extended spindle bearing life, tool life
and machining precision. The greatest cost advantages will be
incurred in the highest speed applications where unbalance forces
match machining force magnitudes. Bearing fatigue life reduces
with the cube of the radial load 关18兴. Therefore, eliminating an
unbalance load equivalent to even only a fraction of the cutting
forces can potentially increase life substantially.
Summary and Conclusions
Active balancing can be applied to machine tools and other
rotating machinery to control unbalance-induced vibration during
machine operation. An adaptive control law was derived for
single-plane active balancing. The control law, based on the influ-
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
ence coefficient method, includes a control gain that tunes the
‘‘aggressiveness’’ of control to enhance stability. A stability cri-
terion was shown for this gain parameter as a function of the
actual and estimated influence coefficients. The control system
utilizes the input and output information available after each
change in active balance correction to compute an estimate of the
influence coefficient. A recursive exponential weighting method is
used to reduce estimation sensitivity to measurement noise while
still responding to time-varying and nonlinear dynamics. Such an
adaptive control system allows quick and robust control response
without requiring any a priori modeling of plant dynamics. The
on-line system identification integral with the control provides the
useful side benefit of allowing the monitoring of machine dy-
namic response characteristics.
Tests of a supervisory implementation of the adaptive control
scheme on high-speed spindle systems showed the system was
successful at controlling synchronous vibration over a wide range
of rotational speeds. The control method performed well even in
the presence of nonlinear and time-varying dynamics. Applica-
tions with well-known unbalance locations such as high-speed
machining spindles are good targets for such a single-plane active
balancing system. For machines with more complex unbalance
distributions, a multiple-plane optimal extension of the control
law is in order. Further investigations are also warranted into the
control system’s capability of responding to rapidly changing ro-
tational speeds and dynamics.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Zhenhu
Zhuang to implement the real-time control and estimation soft-
ware and hardware used in the tests. The comments and direction
of Professor Jianjun Shi were helpful. Dr. Daniel Apley contrib-
uted to the stability analysis outlined in the paper. The authors
also appreciate the effort and useful comments of the reviewers.
Special thanks are due to Mr. Hans Luedi of E. Fischer A. G., Mr.
Dan Beamon of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, and Mr.
Gary Haas of Cincinnati Milacron for the use of their equipment
or facilities. The support of the management and staff at Bala-
Dyne Corp. was key to the success of this research.
References
关1兴 Palazzolo, A. B., Jagannathan, S., Kascak, A. F., Montague, G. T., and Keraly,
L. J., 1991, ‘‘Hybrid Active Vibration control of Rotorbearing Systems Using
Piezoelectric Actuators,’’ DE-Vol. 38, Modal Analysis, Modeling, Diagnostics,
and Control–Analytical and Experimental, ASME, pp. 227–240.
关2兴 Lum, K., Bernstein, D. S., and Coppola, V. T., 1996, ‘‘Adaptive Autocentering
Control For An Active Magnetic Bearing Supporting A Rotor With Unknown
Mass Imbalance,’’ IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 4, No.
5, pp. 587–597.
关3兴 Bovik, P., and Hogfors, C., 1986, ‘‘Autobalancing of Rotors,’’ J. Sound Vib.,
111, No. 3, pp. 429–440.
关4兴 Van de Vegte, J., 1964, ‘‘Continuous Automatic Balancing of Rotating Sys-
tems,’’ J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 6, No. 3, pp. 264–269.
关5兴 Kaliszer, H., and Orlowski, M., 1988, ‘‘Microprocessor-Controlled Automatic
Balancing Systems,’’ Inst. Mech. Eng., C313, pp. 109–115.
关6兴 Van de Vegte, J., and Lake, R. T., 1978, ‘‘Balancing of Rotating Systems
During Operation,’’ J. Sound Vib., 57, No. 2, pp. 225–235.
关7兴 Gosiewski, Z., 1985, ‘‘Automatic Balancing of Flexible Rotors, Part I: Theo-
retical Background,’’ J. Sound Vib., 100, No. 4, pp. 551–567.
关8兴 Lee, C. W., and Kim, Y. D., 1987, ‘‘Modal Balancing of Flexible Rotors
During Operation: Design and Manual Operation of Balancing Head,’’ Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng., 201, No C5, pp. 349–355.
关9兴 Lee, C. W., Joh, Y. D., and Kim, Y. D., 1990, ‘‘Automatic Modal Balancing
of Flexible Rotors During Operation: Computer Controlled Balancing Head,’’
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 204, pp. 19–25.
关10兴 Bishop, R. E. D., 1982, ‘‘On the Possibility of Balancing Rotating Flexible
Shafts,’’ J. Eng. Sci., 24, No 4, pp. 215–220.
关11兴 Genta, G., 1995, Vibration of Structures and Machines, 2nd Ed., Springer-
Verlag, New York.
关12兴 Shiau, T. N., and Hwang, J. L., 1993, ‘‘Generalized Polynomial Expansion
Method for the Dynamic Analysis of Rotor-Bearing Systems,’’ ASME J. Eng.
Gas Turbines Power, 115, pp. 209–217.
关13兴 Genta, G., and De Bona, F., 1990, ‘‘Unbalance Response of Rotors: A Modal
Approach with Some Extensions to Damped Natural Systems,’’ J. Sound Vib.,
140, No. 1, pp. 129–153.
MAY 2001, Vol. 123 Õ 297
 关14兴 Macduff, J. N., 1967, ‘‘A Procedure for Field Balancing Rotating Machinery,’’
Sound and Vibration, 1, No. 7, pp. 16–21.
关15兴 Knospe, C. R., Hope, R. W., Tamer, W. M., and Fedigan, S. J., 1996, ‘‘Ro-
bustness of Adaptive Unbalance Control of Rotors With Magnetic Bearings,’’
J. Vib. Control, 2, pp. 33–52.
关16兴 Knospe, C. R., Hope, R. W., Fedigan, S. J., and Williams, R. D., 1995, ‘‘Ex-
298 Õ Vol. 123, MAY 2001
Downloaded 26 Sep 2011 to 141.212.97.74. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
periments in the Control of Unbalance Response Using Magnetic Bearings,’’
Mechatronics, 5, No. 4, pp. 385–400.
关17兴 Dyer, S. W., Hackett, B. K., and Kerlin, J., 1998, ‘‘Electromagnetically Actu-
ated Rotating Machine Unbalance Compensator,’’ U.S. Patent No. 5,757,662,
May 26.
关18兴 Harris, T. A., 1991, Rolling Bearing Analysis, 3rd Ed., Wiley, New York, p.
764.
Transactions of the ASME