Rotor Balancing

POWERED BY MOBIUS INSTITUTE A N T W E R P, B E L G I U M 2 0 1 7
ROTOR BALANCING &

INFLUENCE COEFFICIENT ANALYSIS
Stanley R. Bognatz, PE
M&B Engineered Solutions, Inc.
75 Laurel Street, Carbondale, PA 18407
Ph: 1 (570) 282-4947 // Email: srb@mbesi.com
www.mbesi.com
© M&B Engineered Solutions Inc. | Rotor Balancing & Influence Coefficient Analysis | 16-June-2017
Introduction
 Rotating Unbalance is a common problem faced by Vibration Analysts
 Solution techniques include: Single-plane; multi-plane; static/couple; four-
run; graphical, computational; exact-point; least-squares….
 Our focus today:

Improving our machinery analysis & balancing results, and
extracting & analyzing influence coefficient data during balancing
 We’re not focusing on specific techniques per se, but getting a better
understanding of the underlying data
 As always, when balancing….

 Our discussion assumes the analyst has correctly identified Unbalance as
the main fault, and eliminated the other typical “1X” driver sources
(misalignment, bowed rotors, etc.)
 Let’s get started with a review of some balancing & rotor-dynamics

terminology
© M&B Engineered Solutions Inc. | Rotor Balancing & Influence Coefficient Analysis | 16-June-2017 Slide 1
Single-Plane (SP) Rotor Model
 Center-hung disk, 2 radial bearings Unbalance
 Aka…the “Jeffcott” rotor Heavy Spot
 Unbalance (Heavy Spot) on disk Center of

 Shifts C.O.G. outward from the Gravity
geometric shaft centerline

 Rotating unbalance creates a
static or in-phase response, with
similar 1X vectors across the
bearings
 The static / in-phase concept is

useful for both rigid rotors & the
1st mode response of flexible rotors
 SP model accurately depicts many

machines for balancing purposes –
motors, fans, pumps, etc.
Multi-Plane (MP) Rotor Model
 MP Rotor Model:
 2 or more unbalanced disks
 Heavy spots at different angles
 Creates a dynamic response, with
vectors out-of-phase at bearings
 MP models apply to long /
flexible rotors:
 Gas / steam turbines
 Large AC generators
 Compressors
 Multi-stage pumps
 Hydro-turbines
 Many machines only have access
to the balance correction planes
at each end of a machine case
 Reduces rotor to a 2-Plane model
for balancing / analysis
Static Unbalance
Heavy
 Static Unbalance is definedSpot
by2Heavy
Spot 2 Heavy
equal heavy spots, at the same Spot 2
angle, on both ends of a rotor:
 Mass centerline parallel to shaft
ine rline
l
 Produces similar
HeavyHeavy
Spot 1Spot 1 ia
C
te r
in-phase
en Cent
a
e
1X
rt ti ne e
vectors across ne Iner erotor
s I sthe li ine rlin
Heavy
s s n t r nterl n te
M a
 Key feature of a
M fStaticCe Ce Spot 1 Ce
h a t haft Unbalance as
s
ine V2
S S M rl
 Vectors lag Heavy Spots aft
C e nte
Correction
Correction
 Angle depends on operating speed Sh Weight 2
Weight 2
versus nearest critical speed
 Applies to:
 Rigid rotors 1st / bouncing mode V1
 Flexible SP & MP rotors operating
well below 2nd critical speed Correction
Correction
Weight 1
Weight 1
 Static Unbalance correction:

 Add equal weights at each end  For static unbalance, correction
 Place weights at the same angle, weights at mid-rotor are very
180° from the heavy spots effective, if the plane is accessible
lin
Heavy ter
en
Spot 1 rti aC
e Heavy
Couple Unbalance Ma
s sI
ne
Sh
a ft C
en
terlin
Spot 2
 Couple Unbalance is equal heavy Correction

Weight 2
spots, 180° opposite, at rotor n e
ends: V2
li Nodal
 Mass c/l Heavy
bisects
Spot 1
at the
ia
C
ter
en rotor c/l (Pivot)
ert
 This creates a nodal
a s s In or
e n terpivot
lin
e
point Heavy
Point
M C
where there is noShvibration aft Spot 1
Correction
 Aka, a pivotal unbalance Weight 1 Correction
Heavy
 Equal (nearly) but opposite 1X vectors en terli
ne
Weight 2
Spot 2
ss C
 Applies to: Ma
lin
e
ter V1
 Rigid rotors in conical / rocking mode aft
Ce
n
Sh
 Flexible rotors near or above their 2nd Correction
critical speed (turbines, etc.) Weight 1
 Couple unbalance correction:

 Add equal weights at each end  Nodal point vibration is zero, so
 Place weights 180 out-of-phase with weights placed at mid-rotor are
each other, opposite the heavy spots ineffective for this mode
Critical Speed Identification
 For a rotor’s lateral balance resonance (critical speed), the classic
1X-filtered Bode & Polar responses are shown here
 Vectors start in the direction of the Heavy Spot
 Amplitude peaks at the resonance frequency, ωres
 Phase increases 90°against-rotation from slow-speed to ωres
 Data must be slow-roll compensated to remove effects of rotor run-out
 Note amplitude at low speed is Zero on both Bode & Polar plots
0° Heavy Spot
Phase Lag Angle
u Heavy Spot Angle

Location
u
+90°
'n
ot
R
+180°
rpm
270° 90°
res
Response
Amplitude
Correction
Weight 180°
res rpm Location
Rigid vs. Flexible Rotors
 Rigid rotors:
 Primary characteristic is very little
phase angle change from low 1st RIGID MODE
speed to full operating speed
 1st mode: ends are in-phase 1st RIGID MODE 2nd RIGID MODE
 2nd mode: ends are out-of-phase

2nd RIGID MODE
 If vectors show up to ~30° phase

change, some flexibility is present
 Quasi-static (subjective) 1st BENDING MODE
1st BENDING MODE
 Flexible rotors: 2nd BENDING MODE
 Phase change > 30° at full speed

 Based on #disks & speed, rotor 2nd BENDING MODE
may experience its 1st, 2nd, or

3rd BENDING MODE
higher, flexible bending mode
 Mode shapes and nodal point 3rd BENDING MODE
locations highly dependent on

bearing & shaft stiffness
Flexible Rotor – 1st Bending Mode
 1st Bending Mode: 1st BENDING MODE
 1X vectors are in-phase along
SHAFT C/L
entire length of the rotor
 Static Unbalance
 Max vibration at mid-rotor BRG C/L
Inboard Bearing Outboard Bearing
 Polar plot data: Response

0° Heavy Spot
2nd BENDING MODE
Response
0°
Heavy Spot
Outboard
 Both bearings have resonance BRG C/L
Inboard
‘loops’ that are in-phase
'n
'n
ot
ot
R
R
375
640 SHAFT C/L 375
640
200 200
1,250 1,250
270° 90° 270° 90°
 Flexible vs. rigid rotors: 3,580

1,520
1,830
3,580
1,520
1,830
 Flexible:
3,120 3,120
1st
mode ‘in-phase’ 2,800
2,460
2,190 2,800
2,460
2,190
vectors show changes vs. speed Correction

Weight 180°
Correction
Weight 180°
 Rigid: 1st bouncing mode also Inboard Outboard
shows in-phase vectors, but  Static Unbalance correction:

with little phase angle change  Equal weights, same angle
vs. speed
 Or, install weights at mid-rotor
BRG C/L
Flexible Rotor – 2nd Bending Mode

 2nd Bending Mode:
 1X vectors at each bearing are 2nd BENDING MODE
180 out-of-phase at full speed
 Couple Unbalance BRG C/L
SHAFT C/L
Inboard Bearing Outboard Bearing
 Polar data for 2nd mode (red): Response

0° 1st Mode
Response
0°
1st & 2nd Mode
 “Figure-8” on one end

Heavy Spot Heavy Spot
 “Double loop” on the other

5,200
'n
'n
ot
ot
R
R
375
 1st mode (blue) still present

4,850
6,100
375 200
200
1,250 4,200 1,250
270° 4,200 90° 270° 90°
6,100
1,830 4,850 1,830
 Flexible vs. rigid rotors:

3,120 3,120 5,200
2,190
2,460 2,460
 Flexible: 2nd mode out-of-phase 2nd Mode

Heavy Spot 180° 180°
vectors changing vs. speed
 Rigid: 2nd / rocking mode also  Couple Unbalance correction:
shows out-of-phase, but no  Equal weights, 180 out-of-phase
phase angle changes with speed  Don’t install weights at mid-rotor
Rotor Dynamics Review
 1X (synchronous) vibration in a fluid film bearing can be defined as the
ratio of unbalance divided by the synchronous dynamic stiffness [2]:
Unbalance Force,FU Mu ru ω2
1X Vibration = Synchronous Dynamic =
K−Mr ω2 +jD 1−λ ω
Stiffness, KS
 So, if 1X vibration increases, what changed? Where (all vector terms):

 Either unbalance increased, or, stiffness decreased MU = Unbalance mass
rU = unbalance radius
 Decreasing stiffness would indicate wear / ω = rotor speed
degradation in rotor-bearing system, changes in K = rotor / bearing system
spring stiffness
the fluid condition, or changes in the structural Mr = rotor mass
support & piping D = fluidic damping (aka ‘C’)
 Balancing may not the correct action to pursue λ = (lambda) average fluid
circumferential velocity ratio
 The analyst must investigate to determine which event within bearing
caused the change in vibration
Synchronous Dynamic Stiffness, KS
𝑲𝑺 = 𝐾 − 𝑀𝑟 𝜔2 + 𝑗𝐷 1 − 𝜆 𝜔
 KS is the sum of 3 stiffness vectors, and controls vibration at any speed
 Spring stiffness (K): remains constant
 Mass inertia (Mr): varies with speed squared, ω2
 Damping (fluidic) stiffness (D): varies with speed, ω. Also, is proportional to
the average fluid circumferential velocity, λ, within the bearing
 The terms can be grouped as follows:
 Direct stiffness, KD: K D = K − Mr ω2
 K and Mr ω2 have opposite signs (+, -),
so those vectors are opposing each other
 Quadrature stiffness, KQ: K Q = jD 1 − λ ω
 The ‘+j’ term indicates the vector acts at 90°
with-rotation from the Direct stiffness terms
 Since D & Mr terms vary with speed, KS must also vary with speed
 Using the variability of KS with speed, we can divide the rotor response
into 3 Zones to classify the balance response vs. speed
Zone 1 – Well Below Resonance
 At low speeds, ω & λ are
small, so K dominates KS
Mass Stiffness
 Since K = constant, KS & 1X Mr 
2
vector phase change S t i f fn ess.

yn . D(1-
remains small (< 30°) Sync. D  Fluidic
 1X vector remains closely K
Spring Stiffness
Stiffness
aligned with Heavy Spot
 So, at low speed, the 1X
vector ‘points toward’ the u Heavy Spot Angle 0° Heavy Spot
Phase Lag Angle

Location
Heavy Spot I
u
 To balance the rotor, install +90°

'n
ot
a balance weight opposite
R
I
+180°
se
the 1X vector rpm
270°
R es
p on 90°
 It can also be placed slightly

ahead of the indicated
Response
Amplitude
position, to adjust for any

I Correction
slight 1X phase changes at rpm
Weight 180°
res Location
speed (~25° shown here)
Zone II – At / Near Resonance
 At resonance, the Mass &
Spring vectors are equal but Mr 
2
opposite, cancelling out

 Only fluid stiffness remains Ks  = 90° D(1-
in control at resonance
 KS is at a minimum value K
 Vibration reaches a peak
 KS changes 90° by resonance
 The 1X vector therefore u Heavy Spot Angle 0° Heavy Spot
Phase Lag Angle

Location
I
changes 90° II u
 1X vector now lags the +90°
'n
ot
R
Heavy Spot by 90°, and is +180°
rpm
I

90° ahead of the desired 270°
Re
90°
sp
balance weight location on
se II
II
 Near resonance the 1X
Response
Amplitude
vector changes quickly for I Correction

small changes in speed res rpm
Weight
Location
180°
 This can make repeatability

difficult – be careful!
Zone II – Rotor Resonance, “Critical Speed”
 At resonance, Mass & Spring
stiffness are equal but Mr 
2
opposite, canceling out

Ks  = 90° D(1-
 So, at this point:
 K – Mr ω2 = 0 K
 Rearranging and solving for the frequency yields

the common relationship for resonance: K
 RES 
 This is our usual “Critical Speed” in simplified form, Mr
and is just the natural frequency of the rotor system
 Also referred to as the lateral balance resonance
 What is “critical” about critical speeds?

 Mainly, rotor vibration reaches a maximum point due to resonance
 Provided the rotor remains reasonably well balanced (which applies to all
rotors, regardless of speed), there really is nothing “critical” about it
Zone III – Well Above Resonance
 Above resonance, Mass
Inertia dominates KS, driving Mr 
2
it to a large value  ~ 180° D(1-

 Vibration reaches a minima Ks
 KS phase changes ~180° K

from the slow speed vectors
 So, the 1X vector also
changes ~180° 0° Heavy Spot
Phase Lag Angle

u Heavy Spot Angle
 The 1X vector is now ~180° I
u
Location
II
from the Heavy Spot, and +90°
'n
‘points to’ the balance
ot
R
III
+180° I
weight location rpm
270° 90°
 If phase has not changed a II III II

full 180 °, the balance res
Response
Amplitude
weight would be installed

I III
slightly against-rotation rpm
Correction
Weight 180°
(behind) from the 1X vector res Location
The ‘Balancing-T’
 Polar plots provide excellent
identification of the Heavy Spot &
balance weight locations
 Data often gets skewed, making C. Balance
analysis less accurate, due to: Weight
 Structural resonances
 Asymmetric support stiffness A. Heavy
 Split-criticals / asymmetric rotors 90°
Spot
 Cross-talk from other rotors 90°

B. Res.
 The author’s Balancing-T helps fit Peak
rotor theory to any data:
 A large ‘T’ is drawn on the plot
 Align leg-A with low-speed vectors
 Leg-B must be 90° against-rotation
from A, aligned with the peak
 Leg-C is 90° from B, showing the
balance weight location  Pivot the T for a good aggregate
fit to best identify the Heavy Spot
& Balance Weight locations
The ‘Balancing-T’
 For an incomplete resonance loop,
it can be harder to identify the
Heavy Spot & weight locations C. Balance
Weight
 Apply the Balancing-T to help
analyze the data:
 Align leg-A at slow speed region
 Draw legs B & C at 90° increments A. Heavy
 Pivot the T to best align with the B. Res. Spot
slow speed vectors & expected Peak
resonance peak
 Depending on how we align the
resonance & slow speed regions,
we may have some error
 Compared to the previous slide,
the Balance Weight difference is
about 20°  We’ve identified the Heavy Spot
with good accuracy and can be
 For a 1st balance shot, this minor confident of reducing the
error is far better than guessing (or vibration, at least partially,
ignoring) the transient data on the first attempt!
Single-Plane Balancing Review
Vib. Xdcr.
0° RPM: 2,800
T'N Balance radius: 3.2"
RO
1
16 2
Given some original vibration O, we 15

T
3
add a Trial Weight, resulting in O+T.

O+T O
The Trial Weight’s effect is T. 14 4
We want to create a T that

is equal & opposite to O, thus Keyph.
13 5 90°
canceling out O.
We modify T’s magnitude by
changing the TW amount. 12 6
We modify T’s angle by changing

the TW location. 11 7
T is “pinned” at the head of O and TW = 0.5 grams
swings from there. 10
9
8 @ 135°
Full Scale: 5 mils-pp
180°
Single-Plane Balancing Review
Vib. Xdcr.
0° RPM: 2,800
T'N Balance radius: 3.2"
RO
1
16 2
15 3
T
If our TW is not ‘perfect’, we can
solve graphically, or calculate 14 O+T O 4
the solution (CW) directly:

Correction Weight Amplitude: Keyph.
13 5 90°
|CW|=|O| / |T| x |TW|
= (4.00/2.02) x 0.5 = 1.00 g CW = 1.0 grams
@ 90°
Correction Weight Angle: 12 6
CW = (O+180) – T + TW
= (45+180)–270+135 = 90
11 7
TW = 0.5 grams
10 8 @ 135°
Full Scale: 5 mils-pp 9 (removed)
180°
Calculating Influence Coefficients
 Influence Coefficients (aka, Influence Vectors) quantify the 1X vibration
change (T) divided by the Trial Weight vector (TW)
 ICs establish the system response at a particular transducer, to a
balance weight in a specific plane, operating at a particular speed
 Influence Coefficient, H: H = T / TW = [ (O+T) – O ] / TW

 Amplitude: |H| = |T| / |TW|
 Lag angle: H =T – TW
 For our data:

 |H| = 2.0 / 0.5
|H| = 4.0 mils-pp / gram
 H = 270 – 135
H = 135 lag angle
IC Magnitude
 For our data, H =
4.0 mils-pp/gram at 135 lag
 The magnitude =
4.0 mils-pp of response, per
1.0 gram of installed weight
 Some analysts find 1/H

more intuitive for field work
 1 / H = (units of weight) per (unit of vibration)
 This is equivalent to a spring stiffness
 For our data, 1/H = ¼ = 0.25 grams/mil-pp

 You can multiply the vibration by 1/H to get the correct weight required
 4.0 mils x ¼ = 1.0 grams correction weight
IC Lag Angle
 H = 4.0 mils/gram at 135 lag angle
 The lag angle indicates how far our desired response vector (-O)
will lag (be behind) the correction weight Vib. Xdcr.
 Desired response = (-O) to cancel out (O) 0° RPM: 2,800
 So, the desired angle for (-O) is: 1

Balance radius: 3.2"
O + 180 = 45+180 = 225 16 2
15 3
 Our IC lag is 135 so, install the

correction weight 135 ahead of 14
O 4
the desired response, (-O)
CW
 Ahead == With-Rotation Keyph.

13 5 90°
 Phase angle values increase
against-rotation
 So, going with-rotation, the 12
135°
6
weight’s phase angle will -O
be numerically less than (-O)
 Install correction weight CW at:

11 7
 225 - 135 = 90 == hole #5 10 8

Full Scale: 5 mils-pp 9
180°
‘One Shot’ Trim Balancing with ICs
 With ICs known, we can calculate a Correction Weight (Trim Balance),
for any given vibration condition, without doing a Trial Weight run
 This reduces total runs needed, and the associated operational costs
 But, it relies on the IC historical data to be accurate & relevant to our data
 The Correction Weight, CW, is: CW = -O / H

 O is the current vibration
 The weight amount is: |CW| = |O| / |H|
 The installation angle is: CW = (-O) – H
 If vibration was 5.0 mils-pp at 210°, and H = 4.0 mils/g at 135°

|CW| = |O| / |H| = 5.0 / 4.0 = 1.25 grams
CW = (-O) – H = (210° – 180°) – 135° = 30° – 135° = -105° == 255°
CW = 255°
 So, the Trim Balance weight would be: 1.25 grams installed at 255°
Direct vs. Longitudinal Influence Coefficients
 For multi-plane measurements, even if only
1 balance plane is used, we describe ICs as:
 H I J = the IC response in measurement plane ‘I’,
due to a balance weight in plane ‘J’
 For a Balance Plane 1 (BP1) weight:

 Direct ICs occur closest to BP1, this is at Brg. 1:
 Brg. 1, Direct IC = H11
 H11 = T1 / TW1 = [ (O+T)11 – O1 ] / TW1
 Longitudinal ICs are responses at any other axial location, so Brg. 2 here:
 Brg. 2, Longitudinal IC = H21
 H21 = T2 / TW1 = [ (O+T)21 – O2 ] / TW1
 Note that Direct ICs are generally have larger magnitude (more
response), as they are closest to the active balance plane
 Longitudinal ICs are generally smaller, being further from the balance
plane
Longitudinal ICs / Cross-Effects
 Some gas turbines, LP steam turbines, and other
machines show larger Longitudinal ICs than Direct
 This “cross effect” usually occurs with rotor’s
operating in their 2nd mode
 Cross-effect can be used to good advantage if
access to the “direct” BPs (those closest to the
high vibration) is restricted
 We can use the balance plane opposite the bearing

with high vibration, using a modified single-plane
balancing approach to calculate a solution
 We must also check that both balance planes will remain acceptable
after the weight installed
Longitudinal ICs / Cross-Effects
 For example, if Brg. 2 vibration is unacceptable,
and IC data shows a strong cross-effect at Brg. 2
for weights installed in BP1
 Calculate a BP1 Correction Weight to solve for
the Brg. 2 vibration:
 CW1 = -O2 / H21
 |CW1| = |O2| / |H21|
  CW1 =  (-O2) -  H21
 Then, verify (predict) how Brg. 1 will respond

(i.e., what will be ‘O+T’ at Brg. 1)
 H12 = T1 / CW2 = [(O+T)12 – O1)] / CW2, solve for (O+T)12
 (O+T)12 = (H12 x CW2) + O1
 |H12 x CW2|= |H| x |CW|
 (H12 x CW2) = H12 + CW2
 Add the 2 vectors to obtain the predicted vibration
 If the Brg. 1 prediction remains acceptable, the balance shot is viable
2-Plane IC Solution
 A ‘full’ 2-plane balance exercise involves 4 runs:
 An original ‘As-Found’ run
 2 Trial Weight runs, one each for BP1 & BP2
 Final ‘As-Left’ run, with the solution installed
 This first 3 runs generates 4 ICs generated as follows:

 Brg. 1, Direct: H11 = T1 / TW1 = [(O+T)11 – O1] / TW1
 Brg. 1, Longitudinal: H12 = T1 / TW2 = [(O+T)12 – O1] / TW2
 Brg. 2, Longitudinal: H21 = T2 / TW1 = [(O+T)21 – O2] / TW1
 Brg. 2, Direct = H22 = T2 / TW2 = [(O+T)22 – O2] / TW2
 The ICs can be listed in matrix form as:

𝐻11 𝐻12
 𝐻 𝐻22
21
2-Plane IC Solution / Trim Balancing
 Using the 4 ICs, we can calculate a 2-Plane solution, or a Trim Balance
 For vibration O1 & O2at Brgs. 1-2, Correction Weights for BP1 & BP2 can
be calculated using either a matrix or algebraic solution, as follows:
Matrix form: Algebraic form:
𝐶𝑊1 −1 −𝑂1 𝐻12 𝑂2 − 𝐻22 𝑂1 𝐻21 𝑂1 − 𝐻11 𝑂2
𝐻 𝐻12
= 11 𝐶𝑊1 = 𝐶𝑊2 =
𝐶𝑊2 𝐻21 𝐻22 −𝑂2 𝐻11 𝐻22 − 𝐻21 𝐻12 𝐻11 𝐻22 − 𝐻21 𝐻12
 Algebraic equations allow an analyst to manually calculate a solution or

perform a trim balance, but data management can be ‘tedious’
 For fast, accurate results, analysts should utilize balancing software for
these calculations, and especially when solving for more than 2 planes
 The ICs obtained can then be applied to any future balancing on the
same (or similar machines)
2-Plane IC Solutions
 Most software packages will offer advanced Matrix form:
interfaces that make job & data management 𝐶𝑊1 𝐻 𝐻12 −1 −𝑂1
= 11
easier, along with advanced math & matrix 𝐶𝑊2 𝐻21 𝐻22 −𝑂2
capabilities for enhanced solutions:
 Slow-roll / run-out compensation (for proximity probe data)
 Measurement weighting, to focus on particular machine areas
 Analyst must choose measurements to emphasize, and which are lower ranking
 Leaving original weights in place
 Useful when weights must be welded in place, or when grinding/drilling is used
 Predicting results for alternate solutions (based on linear responses)
 Using various combination of transducers, weight planes, multiple speeds
 Least-squares minimization routines (vs. exact point solutions)
 Static-couple balancing
 Etc., …..
Repeatability & Linearity
 Specific locations should have show repeatable ICs for any normal range
of balance weights & vibration conditions. For example:
 Our data showed H = 4.0 mils/gram, based on a 0.5g Trial Weight
 If we use a 1g weight, H should still show a 4.0 mils/gram response
 But our response ‘T’ would be twice as large, with the 1g weight
 In fluid-film bearings, the author has noted many cases where IC
repeatability is violated, causing potential problems for analysts
 Kelm [6] and others have noted similar non-repeatability in various lab data
 IC non-repeatability often occurs when:
 1X vibration amplitudes are high, approaching the bearing clearance limits,
and create a high dynamic eccentricity, and/or,
 Misalignment forces the shaft into a high static eccentricity position
 Other changing conditions that contribute to non-repeatability:
 Bearing wear; incorrect clearances
 Support stiffness degradation
 Pipe loading
 Lubricating oil temperature / pressure
 Process temperature / pressure (steam, water, gas, etc.)
Eccentricity Ratio
 Eccentricity Ratio (ER, or e) is an important journal bearing parameter
than can affect balancing linearity & repeatability
 ER measures the shaft’s average position, relative to bearing center, vs.
the bearing’s radial clearance
 Must measure with proximity probes
 Dimensionless, ranges from 0 to 1.0 0°
 Typically 0.4 – 0.8 for horizontal rotors 'Y' 'X'
 Shaft centered in bearing, ER = 0 10.000Ø
 Shaft against bearing wall, ER = 1 - Exaggerated - 9.984Ø
 Example: Clearances
 Brg. ID 10.000”, Shaft OD 9.984” Radial Clearance =

(10.000-9.984) / 2 = 0.008
 Dia. clearance = (10–9.984) = 0.016” ER = 0.003 / 0.008 = 0.375
 Radial clearance = 0.016 / 2 = 0.008”

0.003
 If the shaft is operating 3 mils

(0.003”) from the bearing center: 35°
ER = 0.003 / 0.008 = 0.375 Attitude

Angle
Eccentricity Effects
 Synchronous dynamic stiffness, Fluid Film Radial Stiffness &
Radial Damping vs. Eccentricity Ratio
KS = KD + KS 90,000 200
 Direct stiffness, 𝐾𝐷 = 𝐾 − 𝑀𝑟 𝜔2 80,000 180
160
70,000
 Quadrature stiffness, 𝐾𝑄 = 𝑗𝐷 1 − 𝜆 𝜔 60,000
140
 Both terms vary with speed

120
50,000
100
 Fluid film radial stiffness, damping, 40,000

30,000
80
& average velocity ratio (λ) also

60
20,000 40
change with eccentricity 10,000 20
 As eccentricity increases above ~0.6: 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
 A shaft operating closer to the Eccentricity (e)
bearing wall produces a higher Stiffness Damping
pressure profile [ref. 2,7, et.al],

changing non-linearly at high eccentricities
 This increases the fluid film radial stiffness & damping
 The decreasing ‘gate’ opening between the shaft and bearing wall decrease
the average velocity ratio
 So, changing eccentricity alters dynamic stiffness, and will affect
balancing repeatability, whether run to run, or across jobs long term
 Usual suspects: bearing wear; alignment changes; rubbing
Static Eccentricity
 Eccentricity has both static & dynamic
components
 Static Eccentricity is the shaft
centerline’s average position within
the bearing clearance
 Shaft centerline plot here shows e=0.85
 Primarily dictated by the current state
of rotor alignment while operating
 Also affected by bearing wear,
seal rubbing, and other factors
 Comparing balance shots done
at high eccentricity (>0.7) vs. lower
eccentricity (<0.7):
 We can expect a larger weight per unit
of vibration is needed at the higher
eccentricity, due to higher radial stiffness
 IC values at higher eccentricity are numerically smaller
 For example, H = 4 mils/gram at low eccentricity (light bearing loading)
 Compared to H = 2 mils/gram at higher eccentricity
Dynamic Eccentricity
 Dynamic Eccentricity adds the shaft
vibration to the static eccentricity
 Orbit super-imposed at a given speed
 Clearly shows total eccentricity while
operating (exceeding clearances here)
 Commonly, changing vibration from run
to run while balancing alters the
dynamic eccentricity, affecting IC
repeatability
 A 1st balance shot may reduce a severe
vibration condition to moderate levels
 A 2nd balance shot, calculated based on
the 1st shot, helps further but is not
‘perfect’, leaving some vibration
 We often see IC magnitude trend higher
as vibration is reduced, and may see
changes in the lag angle as well
 IC repeatability generally improves
when starting at moderate levels
ICs – Horizontal vs. Vertical Rotors
 Horizontal equipment (gas / steam turbines, etc.) has relatively
consistent rotor positioning, and typically moderate/high eccentricity,
due to the ‘gravity pre-load’ acting on the rotor
 This consistent positioning reduces eccentricity changes between runs
 It also increases balancing repeatability
 In contrast, vertical machines with fluid film bearings (hydro-turbines,
etc.) often lack a constant lateral pre-load
 The shaft can move more easily within the bearing clearance, affecting the
dynamic and static eccentricity
 Process loading (hydraulic, electric), and static misalignment forces may
help position the rotor
 Because of the greater eccentricity variability, vertical machines often
show significantly larger IC variability
IC Usage – Some Recommendations
 ICs provide excellent tracking of rotor system behavior and predict how
a rotor will respond to balance weights
 For each balance shot performed, the analyst should calculate the
Direct and Longitudinal ICs
 Also tabulate the As-found & As-left vibration levels
 Look for trends – IC data should be consistent – compare data between
runs to determine if the machine is reacting in a repeatable manner
 Compare current IC data to historical data
 Determine if any changes in machine stiffness have occurred that may
indicate structural changes / degradation, or bearing wear
 Ensure the machine is within the unit’s historical IC range – if values are
outside the ‘norm’, start investigating why
 Compare IC data with other machines in the same size / rating class
 If current vs. historical / machine-class data does not agree, be cautious of
mechanical changes / problems (bearing wear, misalignment, etc.)
IC Usage – Some Recommendations
 Look for opportunities to use ‘cross-effects’ to your benefit, to expedite
balancing when access to particular balance planes is difficult
 Use IC data as a cross-reference when balancing similar machines in the
future, allowing ‘one-shot’ trim balancing to be easily performed
 Must be careful that alignment and other factors are within the norm for
that group before generically using historical data from other units
 Always get accurate bearing clearance information and use it to
monitor the static shaft centerline & dynamic eccentricity activity
 When balancing machines with high initial vibration, be aware that
solutions may ‘shift’ as vibration levels are reduced with each shot, as
dynamic eccentricity is reduced
Case History 1 – Hydro-Turbine Balancing
 Unit #1 hydro-turbine generator was balanced at a
client’s site during 2013
 Initial Speed/No-Load 1X vibration was 11.2 mils-pp
 After 2 balance shots on the generator rotor arms,
vibration was reduced to 4.8 mils
 Client was satisfied, project was complete
 Minor IC variability noted for shots 1 & 2:

 1/H1 = 12.63 lbs./mil; 1/H2 = 11.40
 -9.7% change, typical
 Phase lag within 13° = good agreement, ok
 Easy job…..
Case History 1, continued
 Unit #3 at the same plant was
balanced during 2015
 Severe 1X vibration > 25 mils-pp at
Speed / No-Load indicated UGB bearing
shoes were likely set too loose
 We recommended a bearing inspection
 Client did not want to inspect bearing
 “Can’t we just balance it?”…..
 2 balance shots were performed

 Reduced 1X vibration to 9.2 mils
 Client did not want to stop at that time, due to generation demands
Case History 1, continued
 Comparing 1/H data to Unit #1:
 42% less weight required per mil,
 Confirmed a significantly ‘softer’ system
 IC Lag angles agreed reasonably well
 Subsequent inspection revealed pads were set with ~30% more radial
clearance than Unit #1
References
1. Allaire, P.E., & Gunter, E.J (1996). Basics of Rotor Dynamic Analysis – Critical Speeds and
Unbalance Response, RMT Rotor Bearing Dynamics Short Course.
2. Bently, D.E. (2002). Fundamentals of Rotating Machinery Diagnostics.
Minden, NV: Bently Pressurized Bearing Company.
3. Bognatz, S.R., P.E. (2006) Transient Speed Vibration Analysis - Insights into Machinery Behavior.
Halifax, NC: Piedmont Chapter, Vibration Institute.
4. Ehrich, F.F. (1992). Handbook of Rotordynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
5. Eshleman, R.L., Ph.D, P.E. (2005). Balancing of Rotating Machinery. Willowbrook, IL: Vibration Institute.
6. Kelm, R.D. (2008). Advanced Field Balancing Techniques. Willowbrook, IL: Vibration Institute.
7. Leader, M.E., P.E. (2006). Understanding Journal Bearings. Willowbrook, IL: Vibration Institute.
8. Vance, J.M. (1998). Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Vance, J., Zeidan, F., & Murphy, B. (2010). Machinery Vibration and Rotordynamics.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thank you for Attending!
Any Questions?
 A copy of this presentation & associated paper will be available for

several weeks at:
http://www.mbesi.com/Downloads/Downloads.htm

Rotor Balancing

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rotor Balancing

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

POWERED BY MOBIUS INSTITUTE A N T W E R P, B E L G I U M 2 0 1 7

ROTOR BALANCING &

 Our focus today:

 As always, when balancing….

 Let’s get started with a review of some balancing & rotor-dynamics

 Unbalance (Heavy Spot) on disk Center of

geometric shaft centerline

 The static / in-phase concept is

 SP model accurately depicts many

 Static Unbalance correction:

 Couple Unbalance is equal heavy Correction

 Couple unbalance correction:

u Heavy Spot Angle

 2nd mode: ends are out-of-phase

 If vectors show up to ~30° phase

1st BENDING MODE

 Flexible rotors: 2nd BENDING MODE

 Phase change > 30° at full speed

may experience its 1st, 2nd, or

locations highly dependent on

Inboard Bearing Outboard Bearing

 Polar plot data: Response

‘loops’ that are in-phase

 Flexible vs. rigid rotors: 3,580

vectors show changes vs. speed Correction

shows in-phase vectors, but  Static Unbalance correction:

Flexible Rotor – 2nd Bending Mode

Inboard Bearing Outboard Bearing

 Polar data for 2nd mode (red): Response

 “Figure-8” on one end

 “Double loop” on the other

 1st mode (blue) still present

1,830 4,850 1,830

 Flexible vs. rigid rotors:

 Flexible: 2nd mode out-of-phase 2nd Mode

 So, if 1X vibration increases, what changed? Where (all vector terms):

vector phase change S t i f fn ess.

Phase Lag Angle

 It can also be placed slightly

position, to adjust for any

opposite, cancelling out

Phase Lag Angle

vector changes quickly for I Correction

 This can make repeatability

opposite, canceling out

 Rearranging and solving for the frequency yields

 What is “critical” about critical speeds?

it to a large value  ~ 180° D(1-

 KS phase changes ~180° K

Phase Lag Angle

 If phase has not changed a II III II

weight would be installed

 Cross-talk from other rotors 90°

Given some original vibration O, we 15

add a Trial Weight, resulting in O+T.

We want to create a T that

We modify T’s angle by changing

the solution (CW) directly:

 Influence Coefficient, H: H = T / TW = [ (O+T) – O ] / TW

 For our data:

 Some analysts find 1/H

 For our data, 1/H = ¼ = 0.25 grams/mil-pp

 So, the desired angle for (-O) is: 1

O + 180 = 45+180 = 225 16 2