Spring 2017 Course Attendee Reviews:

Practical Rotordynamics for Real Machinery

April 24 - 27, 2017 in Charlottesville, VA

Instructors: Malcolm E. Leader, Mark Corbo, Erik Swanson


Rotordynamics:  Evaluations, Comments      DyRoBeS:  Evaluations, Comments          Courses Home     

Thanks again to all of the participants!


Spring 2017 Rotordynamics Short Course

^top
Excellent/YesGoodOK/SomewhatNot greatPoor/No
1The instructors knowledge of rotordynamics was:211
2The pacing of the course was:4163
3The amount of material covered was:11111
4The amount of interaction encouraged was:9113
5Was your interest held?221
6Was your time well spent in the course?2111
7Would you recommend this course to others?221*
8Would you recommend this group of instructors to others?23
* Not for individuals in aerospace industry

^top

Responses to "What was particularly helpful about the course?"

  • Practical implications, redesigns focused on cost, interesting case studies.
  • Information about what effects to look for from various components ball bearings Ė no damping, etc.
  • Reiterating important concepts accepting and answering questions during lectures.
  • Case studies were great; intro to rotordynamics was very good and helpful to catch up.
  • Case studies; different bearing types/performance; main analyses which should be done.
  • The case studies were particularly interesting. I also thought the breadth of the material covered was helpful.
  • Case studies.
  • Pumps and journal bearing discussion.
  • Alternating between case studies and theory. Practical examples. Pictures and models.
  • Gained a good understanding of the rotordynamics report we received for No Bull.
  • Conceptual and practical approach, well balanced, although sometimes some details were slipped.
  • This is my first experience w/rotordynamics, so everything is new and interesting.
  • The bearing and pump talks were very helpful.
  • Very good fundamental understanding with a lot of in-depth information.
  • The details about the components and how to model; field experience.
  • Bearings and SFD effect: torsion analysis.
  • The specific case studies drove the trouble shooting aspects home. Each case is particular and needs a different approach.
  • All about journal bearings and pump analysis.
  • Not particularly helpful in my industry and product.
  • I did come away with a better understanding of fundamentals of rotordynamic analysis and design knobs to turn to address problems. Case studies were very helpful for crystalizing those ideas.


^top

Responses to "What would you recommend changing about the course?"

  • Implement a few hand-call problems to work through the math as an example.
  • More time spent on rolling element bearing systems and issues specific to them (case studies, etc.).
  • More figures and equations to help solidify concepts.
  • I would maybe see if there is a way to show how to use the equations after theyíre introduced. There are a lot of equations that look similar to it would be nice to show the distinctions.
  • More on squeeze film dampers; actual hardware would be interesting.
  • It would be helpful if interactive group sessions could be held to solve simple problems.
  • Going over the workshop handout.
  • Break up presentations with more case studies.
  • More photographs of actual equipment/components. Include section on diagnostics from frequency response data (more detail). Add diagrams of UFD, screw compressors, etc.
  • Lunches provided are preferred over a provided dinner; I would like to have taken a training like this 15-20 years ago.
  • Decrease the amount of focus on pumps.
  • Include one single simulation apart from DyRoBeS.
  • Maybe actual calculations of critical speeds to help with the conceptÖmy guess is this is done during the DyRoBeS class on Friday.
  • More interaction. Some of the lectures I zoned out due to my brain being full for the day.
  • Reduce the pace.
  • More details about roller bearings and gas turbine systems; less pumps.
  • Options for taking specific subjects as stand alone.
  • More information applied in a rotordynamics program.
  • More analytical based approach, less focus on industry case studies.
  • Would prefer more coverage/case studies of bad machines w/rub, misalignment, looseness etc. and process for troubleshooting, rather than corrections of machines w/bad rotordynamic design. Coverage of torsion is excessive for my needs.


^top

Responses to "Now that you have completed this course, what additional training (if any) would be helpful?"

  • This is as far (or farther) than I need for my current field. Maybe balancing course.
  • Homework? Just a sample problem each evening with review the next day would be helpful.
  • Hands on work; simple examples with known solutions.
  • I would be interested in more focused trainings on what our companies focus is on. Ex, pump, compressors, test rigs, etc.
  • DyRoBeS
  • More information about the details of how the software uses inputs and solves.
  • Maybe in-depth training on particular topic, like lateral.
  • I think more in-depth look at vibration cause and affects from instability would be nice.
  • Troubleshooting and interpreting field data.
  • An aerospace specific engine, gearbox, etc. driven course.
  • Need to digest first.
  • None that I can think of.
  • A pump specific course would be helpful since they are different.
  • I, as well as everyone else here, will have to study the material covered vigorously in order to have a novice-level competence in rotordynamics.
  • Non-linear & transient (speed dependent) analysis for gas turbine systems. Roller bearing modeling & requirements for rotordynamics.
  • During course, having some calculation workshops.


^top

Other comments or feedback:

  • Would rather the dinner; lunches on our own.
  • I prefer the lunches to dinner. The lunches provide a lot more opportunity to mingle with the rest of the class.
  • I like the case studies but I think there would be more of an impact if as a class to go through the set up. Iíd like to see how to gather the right data in the situation along with the calculations used for stiffness and frequencies. If there was a PowerPoint that condensed all the equations used with their topics, it would make life great.
  • Lunch rather than dinner, but dinner was good.
  • If given the choice I would prefer to do lunches on our own. This would provide a nice break from being in the same room.
  • Lunches, no dinner, bottomless coffee during the day.
  • I think providing a light lunch and encouraging participants to go out for dinner together would be best. Learned a lot after hours each night by talking over dinner.
  • Dinner would be a better option than the lunches. Restaurant was good and it was helpful to socialize with classmates. Free lunch periods would also allow time to catch up on work. Coffee in the afternoon is an essential addition.
  • This course is mostly focused on petroleum and power generation industries. It would have been good to understand that before signing up for the course. We are an aerospace focused company with limited exposure to these industries.
  • Lunch preferable over dinner on Monday.
  • No preference on spring or fall course. I would choose lunch each day over one dinner.
  • There is more info each day than I can absorb. Longer breaks would be helpful. The first 2 days were helpful but Wed & Thur was hard to stay engaged. Donít bother with lunch, it was appreciated but no enjoyed. Lots of good food near the hotel.
  • If I had to choose, I would prefer to have the lunch provided every day than dinner.
  • I would like to see much more case studies about gas turbine systems.
  • Lunches provided preferred.
  • Course wasnít applicable to my industry or product.
  • Would prefer to retain the dinner and be on my own for lunch. It works remarkably well to have three different instructors with markedly different styles to keep the material engaging.






Spring 2017 DyRoBeS Feedback Results

^top
Excellent/YesOKPoor/No
1The instructors knowledge of DyRoBeS was:8
2The exercises to practice using DyRoBeS were:53
3The pacing of the course was:44
4The amount of material covered was:53
5The amount of interaction encouraged was:71
6Was your interest held?8
7Was your time well spent in the course?8
8Would you recommend this course to others?8
9Would you recommend this group of instructors to others?8

^top

Responses to "What was particularly helpful about the course?"

  • Hands on work w/Dyrobes. Good samples exercises.
  • UI introduction. Thatís half the battle of knowing a program.
  • Hands on practice was good, maybe more realistic model would be an improvement.
  • Run unbalance response
  • Stepping through from the simple example & building to a more complex model.
  • Walking through the potential pitfalls and how to avoid certain potential issues in the future.


^top

Responses to "What would you recommend changing about the course?"

  • What would you recommend changing about the course?
  • More exercises w/complex models. Additional time, maybe an hour or two after all lectures each day.
  • Walk through examples w/class instead of quick demo.
  • I would like more time spent building models. I still donít really understand why itís done the way it is.
  • Add more exercise menu and time.
  • More examples that are open ended with correct values to compare to.
  • More examples that start from an engineering drawing so the whole process of generalizing down to a model can be covered.
  • Going through a more complicated follow along demo.


^top

Responses to "Now that you have completed this course, what additional training (if any) would be helpful?"

  • Torsional training and more complex multi-level/layered models.
  • More focused toward our product.
  • Reciprocating system analysis in Dyrobes/theory.
  • Specific focus on aspects of interest (i.e. time transient)


^top

Other comments or feedback:

  • Please offer a fall course as some of my colleagues may be interested in coming. Good class overall. More time spent building and understanding what's going on with the model would be appreciated.
  • Modeling realistic systems that have data to predict and tune models to.