API Rotos T01 PDF

Proceedings of the Forty-Second Turbomachinery Symposium
October 1-3, 2013, Houston, Texas
SHOP ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING OPTIONS, OBJECTIVES, BENEFITS AND PRACTICES
Dr. John A. Kocur, Jr. Dr. C. Hunter Cloud

ExxonMobil Research & Engineering BRG Machinery Consulting LLC
3225 Gallows Road, Rm 2A-0601 703 Highland Avenue
Fairfax, VA 22037-0001 Charlottesville, VA 22903
(703) 846-2275 (434) 293-9926
john.a.kocur@exxonmobil.com chcloud@brgmachinery.com
John A. Kocur, Jr. is a Machinery ASME, the Vibration Institute, the API 684 rotordynamics task
Engineer in the Plant Engineering force, and the advisory committee for the Texas A&M
Division at ExxonMobil Research & Turbomachinery Symposium.
Engineering in Fairfax, Virginia. He
has worked in the turbomachinery field ABSTRACT
for 30 years. In his current capacity,
he provides support to the downstream, Understanding the lateral rotordynamic behavior is critical
upstream and chemical business lines in determining the reliability/operability of rotating equipment.
Whether examining a centrifugal pump or compressor, steam or
within ExxonMobil with expertise on
vibrations, rotor/thermo dynamics, failure analysis and health gas turbine, motor or generator, rotating machinery share the
monitoring of rotating equipment. Prior to joining EMRE, he same need to accurately predict and measure dynamic behavior.
Industrial specifications determining fit for purpose rely on the
held the position of Manager of Product Engineering and
Testing at Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery. There accuracy of rotordynamic predictions where direct
Dr. Kocur directed the development, research, design, measurement is impractical or otherwise impossible in an
industrial setting. Testing to confirm rotordynamic prediction
engineering and testing of the compressor and steam turbine
product lines. He has also held positions with Pratt & Whitney and behavior provides both the purchaser and vendor the
and Amoco Corporation. confidence that the design will meet project expectations.
Dr. Kocur received his BSME (1978), MSME (1982) and Rotordynamic shop testing has several options available to
Ph.D. (1991) from the University of Virginia and an MBA the project during acceptance tests at the vendors shop. These
(1981) from Tulane University. He has authored papers on options include mechanical run, string and full load/Type 1
rotor instability and bearing dynamics, lectured on hydrostatic testing as well as verification testing to validate unbalance
bearings, has sat as a committee chairman for NASA Lewis and response and stability predictions. Such testing has numerous
is a member of ASME. Currently, he holds positions within API advantages; the most important being the avoidance of
as 617 vice-chair, 684 chair and chair of Subcommittee on production disruptions involved with testing at the job site.
Mechanical Equipment (SOME). Each test option has associated costs as well as limitations as to
what lateral vibration characteristics are revealed.
C. Hunter Cloud is President of BRG Understanding these factors is vital to efficiently mitigate the
Machinery Consulting, LLC, in risks associated with the purchased equipment.
Charlottesville, Virginia, a company Applying best practices and an understanding of the
providing a diverse range of rotating industrial (API) test requirements are needed to derive the
machinery technical services. He began maximum benefit of each test option. The best practices not
his career with Mobil Research and only involve the test procedure but also the associated
Development Corporation in Princeton, analytical methods used to post process the measurement
NJ, as a turbomachinery specialist information. Whether performing a simple mechanical run test
responsible for application engineering, or more complex stability verification during ASME Type I
commissioning, and troubleshooting for testing, ensuring that a logical, repeatable and proven
production, refining and chemical facilities. During his 11 methodology is followed produces reliable evidence to confirm
years at Mobil, he worked on numerous projects, including the rotordynamic model and lateral vibration performance. The
several offshore gas injection platforms in Nigeria as well as rationale behind the API test requirements provides an
serving as reliability manager at a large US refinery. understanding of why that test is being performed and its
Dr. Cloud received his B.S. (Mechanical Engineering, correct application to the dynamic behavior.
1991) and Ph.D. (Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
2007) from the University of Virginia. He is a member of
Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Test options can be separated into two categories; tests that can impact the other with sometimes disastrous effects.
reveal portions of the dynamic behavior of the equipment to Nowhere is this more evident than centrifugal equipment,
specific operating conditions and those used to verify the especially compression. For this reason, this tutorial will focus
analytical predictions of that behavior. API mechanical, string on testing the rotordynamic behavior of centrifugal
and Type I (or full load) tests reveal the rotordynamic behavior compressors. However, most of the principles and practices are
of the equipment to a given set of conditions. These are used applicable across all types of turbomachinery.
specifically to determine acceptability of the design.
Rotordynamic behavior testing involves both direct
Unbalance and stability verification testing is used to confirm
measurement and inference. Direct measurement of the
(or provide confidence in) the rotordynamic model.
vibration is typically made at the journal locations. Internal
Confidence in the model permits extrapolation of the design
vibration levels at other critical locations can only be inferred
(vendor) and operation (purchaser) beyond the machines as-
from these measurements using the rotordynamic predictions.
built and specific shop test conditions.
Thus, industrial specifications determining fit for purpose rely
on the accuracy of rotordynamic predictions where direct
INTRODUCTION
measurement is impractical or otherwise impossible in an
The first task of an annular seal is the restriction of leakage industrial setting. Testing to confirm rotordynamic prediction
flowrate between a rotating shaft and a stationary housing. As it and behavior provides both the purchaser and vendor the
turns out, annular gas seals can also have a significant impact confidence that the design will meet project expectations.
on dynamic characteristics of compressors and turbines.
Rotordynamic shop testing has several options available to
Demands on turbomachinery continue to push designs beyond
the project during acceptance tests at the vendors shop. These
experience limits in terms of speed, power, size, pressure
options include tests to demonstrate operating behavior at a
development and flow rate all the while demanding higher
specific condition (mechanical run, string and full load/Type 1
reliability and operability. To meet the performance objectives
testing) and verification testing to validate unbalance response
of the application, almost absolute knowledge of the behavior
and stability predictions. Such testing has numerous
of the machine is necessary. To aide in this understanding,
advantages; the most important being the avoidance of
advanced analytical methods have been developed in parallel
production disruptions at the job site. Each test option has
with the increases in computational power. Whether predicting
associated costs as well as limitations as to what lateral
blade flutter due to impingement flow, reaction of a machinery
vibration characteristics are revealed. Understanding these
train to alternating torque or rub potential due to sudden
factors is vital to efficiently mitigate the risks associated with
imbalance, current tools sets allow designers to study detailed
the purchased equipment.
aspects of machinery behavior like never before.
Application of best practices and an understanding of the
Shop acceptance testing has long been used as the final
industrial (API) test requirements are needed to derive the
check of the turbomachinery design and is required for all
maximum benefit of each test option. The best practice not
special purpose equipment. With the advancement of
only involves the test procedure but also the associated
computational methods, failure rates during testing have been
analytical methods used to post process the measurement
greatly reduced. However, experience has taught us analytical
information. Whether performing a simple mechanical run test
methods alone are insufficient to guarantee the right the first
or more complex stability verification during ASME Type I
time philosophy that many reliability systems employ.
testing, ensuring that a logical, repeatable and proven
Whether used to provide data to baseline prototype equipment,
methodology is followed produces reliable evidence to confirm
to benchmark extensions of current experience limits, or for
the rotordynamic model and lateral vibration performance.
verification of proven practices, testing remains an integral part
of all reliability systems. Test options can be separated into two categories; tests that
reveal portions of the dynamic behavior of the equipment to
Understanding the dynamic behavior is critical in
specific operating conditions (Vibration Demonstration Tests)
determining the reliability/operability of rotating equipment.
and those used to verify the analytical predictions of that
Whether designing a pump, compressor, turbine, motor or
behavior (Design Verification Tests). API mechanical run,
generator, all rotating machinery share the same need to
string and Type I (or full load/full pressure) tests reveal the
accurately predict and measure dynamic behavior. Literature is
rotordynamic behavior of the equipment for a given set of
swamped with failures that resulted from both inadequate
conditions. These are used specifically to determine
design and testing methodologies. While the potential for
acceptability of the design in a pass/fail mode. Unbalance
failure originates at the design stage, testing represents the final
response and stability verification testing is used to confirm (or
step to identify that potential. The importance of efficiently
provide confidence in) the rotordynamic model and analysis.
employing both cannot be understated [1].
Confidence in the model permits extrapolation of the design
Turbomachinery is dominated by two classes of dynamic (vendor) and operation (purchaser) beyond the machines as-
behavior; rotordynamics and fluid dynamics. As their names built and specific shop test conditions.
imply, each focuses on a specific dynamic behavior;
The tutorial will cover the following aspects of
rotordynamics on the rotating systems vibration and fluid
rotordynamic testing:
dynamics on the mechanical interaction with the working fluid.
As our depth of understanding increases, the more interrelated Decision to test: Why and on What Basis?
these behaviors become. Decisions made in the design of one

Rotordynamic Testing matic outcomes
being entirely econoomic.) Exampples of problem
to connsider are:
o Option
ns
Instability ((high subsynchhronous vibratiion)
o Objecttives
o Risk: IInstability drivvers (gas denssity, speed, PP,
o Preparration
criticall speed locatioon), operating characteristicss,
o Inform
mation / Knowlledge Gain deposittion plugging sseal cavities1
o Benefi
fits o Scenarrio: Internal rubbing, beaaring damagee,
compoonent failure
Recommen
nded Practices
o Conseqquence: Downntime impact for repair or o
o Vibrattion Demonstraation Tests
reconfi
figuration (exteensive), impacct of operation
n
o n Verification Tests
Design restricttions
High synchhronous vibration levels
DECISION TO TE
EST: WHY AN
ND ON WHA
AT BASIS
o Risk: Unbalance seensitivity, highh amplification
n
Thhe need for rotordynamic testing stemss from severaal
factorss, critical sppeed encroacchment, mode
objecctives; to prove the behavior of the mach hine, to test th
he
involveed, thermal insstability
accurracy of the ven ndors predictiions and to ideentify problem
ms
beforre the machinee is put into op peration. The decision to test o Scenarrio: Failure off casing attachhments, bearing
g
and w which objectiv ves to pursuee result from several factorrs failure, internal rubbiing
relateed to the appliccation. These factors
f are:
o Conseqquence: D
Downtime ffor repairss,
Risk-conseequence analyssis considering the following:: reconfi
figuration costss
o Impacct on operationss given failure or performancce Internal rubbbing
deficieencies
o Risk: Sensitivity off rotor to unnbalance, high h
o Outage length due to
o location amplifi
fication factor, component innvolved (bladee,
laby seal, etc.)), unbalancce due to
o Experiience with sim
milar services
erosionn/corrosion asppects of workinng fluid
Safety, Heealth and Envirronment (SHE
E) impact of th
he o Scenarrio: Efficiency loss due to exxpanded seal/tip
p
project clearannces, blade faillure
Technolog
gy application experience
e (ven
ndor or user) o Conseqquence: Impact of perform mance loss on
n
o Protottype equipmentt operatiion, downtime impact for reppair
o New application
a of the
t technology
o New arrangement
a
Variability
y of process con
nditions
Rotordynamic analysis reesults
Thhese factors in
nvolve the pro oject risks and
d consequencees
and sshould be knowwn at the begin nning of the project when th he
testinng decisions are
a made. Detailed
D machiine design an nd
analyysis (which mayy act to mitigaate some of these risks) are no
ot
performed until lattter stages of thhe project. Sin
nce one goal ofo
the teesting may inv
volve verification of the anallysis, basing thhe
test ddecision on th
he projects rissks and conseequences makees
sensee.
A
Approaching th he project from m a risk-conseq quence analysis
establlishes a logicaal framework upon
u which to make decision ns
[2]. TThe framework k provides a baasis for efficien
ncy and enablees
the coorrect mitigatioon activities to
o be performed d. A typical rissk
matrix is shown in Figure
F 1.
Thhe risk matrix should be used to address sp
pecific concern
ns Fiigure 1) Typical Risk Matrix
of thhe machinery. For rotordy ynamics, a po ossible outcomme
shoulld be weighed d with the factors driving risk and thosse
1
drivinng the conseq quence. (Con nsequence heree is defined asa K.E.AttkinsandR.X.Perrez[4]discussquaantificationofinstaabilityriskusing
failurerratedata.
Copyrightt 2013 by Tu
urbomachinery Laboratory, T
Texas A&M Enngineering Expperiment Station
n
The user must also consider the safety, health and every possible operating condition or combination of assembly
environmental impact of possible failures that can be attributed /machining tolerances be tested. To fully understand the
to the machinery in question. The impacts can result in the acceptability of the design and the rotordynamic behavior, we
release of gas from component failure due to high vibrations, must rely on the accuracy of the rotordynamic analysis.
failure to meet regulatory requirements due to unplanned Consequently, tests to determine the accuracy of those
outage or injury due to parts release during failure. The risks of predictions were developed. These additional tests were
each can be determined through a failure mode analysis [3] that developed to provide more than a pass/fail test, which is
incorporates the rotordynamic contributions to the identified essentially what the vibration demonstration tests are. They
failure modes. were implemented to determine the robustness of the design.
This is particularly useful when operating conditions are widely
Experience plays an important role in determining the
variable or when design experience limits are exceeded. The
extent of testing to perform. Experience in this case relates to
second type of testing option is referred to as design
both the vendor and user. Obviously, prototype machinery or
verification tests with the two most prevalent being:
equipment that extends the experience limits of the vendor
should be tested thoroughly. What may be overlooked is the Unbalance response This test would include the
experience of the user with that equipment. First application of more invasive testing required by API [8]
technology within a user company may benefit from additional
testing at the vendors shop. The testing can be used to better Stability Not currently specified by API standards.
understand the dynamics and what conditions or operating Verification testing also has the options of where these tests
nuances may affect the rotordynamic behavior. Finally, can be performed. In either case, the tests may be performed in
prototype components within the machinery may require a high speed balance bunker, during the mechanical test or
additional component testing to determine their impact on the during the full load testing. Each option adds additional
rotordynamic behavior of the machinery. considerations in what can be measured, dynamic effects
Finally, the results of the rotordynamics analysis should be included in the test and what portion of the dynamic behavior is
used to weigh the decision to test and which test to select. analyzed.
Machines shown sensitive to destabilizing forces or those Test Preparation
predicted to have low stability levels may benefit from stability
verification tests. Similarly, a rotor with high amplification Following the decision to perform a rotordynamic test, the
factors may influence the decision to perform unbalance user should decide which specifications to apply to the test.
response verification testing. Verification testing, as noted The specification should describe the objectives and
earlier, is intended to prove the accuracy of the predictive tools requirements of the test. For several of the test options
used to model the rotor behavior and thus assess the described above, API standards have described a specific test
acceptability of the design. The use of a proven rotordynamic procedure to be followed. The API standard details the
analysis is an effective and efficient mitigation strategy towards procedure, objective and requirements for the test. For the
reducing risk. more specialized testing, the user will need to develop their
own test specification. This can be done with the assistance of
ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING the vendor or by consulting industry specialists.
Options Test Objectives
Fundamentally, there are two types of testing options The objectives of the tests performed should be discussed at
available for lateral rotordynamic assessment. The first type, the initial stages of the project. Agreement on the test
referred to as vibration demonstration tests, demonstrates the objectives will assist in the determination of what equipment is
behavior of the as-built machine and/or train for a specific set needed, measurements to be taken, and conditions to be run.
of operating conditions. Generally, only the site specific Generally speaking, the objectives of each test are listed below.
instrumentation is used to measure lateral vibration behavior. Other specialty objectives can be added, but the ones listed
The tests do not address the accuracy of the model or tools used below would form the basis for each test.
to predict the rotordynamic behavior, nor do they attempt to Vibration Demonstration Tests
estimate or determine the robustness of the design. Those that
fall into this category are: Mechanical Run Test
Mechanical Run an example is the API required The mechanical run test as required by API is primarily a
mechanical test [5] vibration level check. Measured at the probes located at the
journal location, vibration levels are checked against the
String API 617 refers to this as a complete unit test specified limit for both overall and non-synchronous
[6] components. General mechanical performance is also
examined including bearing temperatures, close clearance
Full load/Full pressure Referred to as a Type I test
rubbing and seal performance typically up to maximum
by ASME [7]
continuous speed (MCS). Supercritical behavior is examined
Many important aspects of the rotordynamic behavior by determination of the amplification factor and separation
cannot be practically measured (i.e. internal vibration levels, margin of typically the 1st critical speed. (Obviously, the
separation margin to modes above operating speed) nor can behavior of modes above MCS remains undetermined.)

String Test is the compressor stable but how stable is it. The
measurements are then compared against the analytical
The string test is not much different than the mechanical
predictions to determine accuracy. Pettinato et al. [9] presented
test mentioned previously. As the name implies, the string test
a methodology employing this test during mechanical and
is performed with all or a major portion of the machinery train
performance testing (as required by API 617).
connected (typically everything but the driver.) The objectives
of this test are also similar to the mechanical test of a single Test Information / Knowledge Gain
body in that vibration levels are checked against limits,
To determine the extent of testing to perform, one needs to
mechanical performance is examined, and supercritical
understand the information or knowledge gained of the
behavior is analyzed. However, in this case, these are
rotordynamic behavior of the body or train. While similar
determined for the coupled train configuration. The string test
information can be obtained from several of the tests, the costs
is run to measure the coupled body dynamic behavior (when
associated with each determine the overall efficiency of
rigid couplings are used in the train) or the coupling spacer
obtaining the necessary information to mitigate risks identified
dynamics (for couplings with unusually long or heavy spacer
in the risk matrix. As before, the tests are separated into
tubes.)
vibration demonstration and verification testing. Vibration
Full Load / Full Pressure Test demonstration testing confirms the machinery can meet project
specifications for a given operating and as-built condition. No
Full load / full pressure tests are rarely performed based on
attempt is made to confirm the accuracy of the analytical
rotordynamic justifications only, mainly due to the costs
prediction beyond confirmation that the specification has been
involved. However, the Type I test does permit vibration level
met. Since the accuracy of the analytical prediction remains
checks at operating conditions, stall determination, impact of
largely in question, inferred information from the analytical
internal loading and deflections on dynamic behavior of
method should also be questioned.
individual components (seals and bearings) and a binary check
for stability (yes or no). Range testing is rarely done during the Vibration Demonstration tests
Type I test. Typically gas properties are held constant,
Mechanical Run
clearances are left at as-built values and alternate
configurations are not considered. Thus, while some aspects of Mechanical testing provides information related to the
rotordynamic behavior are tested, margins and robustness are critical speed location and some indication of that modes
left unchecked. The machines undergoing these tests leave behavior. The modal information is limited to only those
those factors to analytical studies whose accuracy may remain modes located below the maximum test speed achieved (trip
unchecked. Keep in mind, to predict the stability (stable vs. speed in most cases.) Typically, this is only the 1st critical
unstable) of any machine is the first step in developing a good speed. The modal behavior information is restricted to the
predictive tool. However, it is not the only step. As designs amplification factor which is sketchy at best. The amplification
extend the operating or design experience, it becomes necessary factor can be highly sensitive to the acceleration/deceleration
to predict the stability threshold, separation margins and overall rate and whose magnitude is not restricted by API. The test
optimization of the design correctly, thus the need for also validates the balance procedures effectiveness in meeting
verification testing. the project vibration limit specification.
Design Verification Tests For certain low risk applications, this amount of information
is sufficient. What isnt tested however can be significant. For
Unbalance Response
example, subcritical motor applications (incorrectly termed stiff
The likely first attempt to publish a verification test in an shaft) operate below the 1st critical. This critical speed can
industry standard was the unbalance response verification test have high amplification factors and can be damaging if the
published by API 617. The objective was simply to verify the separation margin is lost. Performing only a mechanical test
unbalance response prediction accuracy of the vendors will tell the user whether the mode is on or below the operating
rotordynamic analysis with regards to the machines unbalance speed. The amount of separation remains untested and can only
sensitivity within the operating speed range and the location of be inferred from the unverified analytical predictions. Thus,
the critical speeds (below trip speed.) The verification test the impact of support stiffness loss on the location of the mode
analyzes both the predictor tool and model employed. A in the field (due to structural or bearing clearance changes) can
methodology was refined over several editions of API 617 have significant risk associated with it.
within the limitations of the mechanical shop test.
String Test
Alternatively, performing this test in the balance bunker has
gained acceptance with the increase in at-speed balancing of String testing will provide the same type of rotordynamic
rotors and the freedom it permits in terms of weight placement information as obtained with the mechanical testing but at the
and additional measurement points. higher costs of assembling the entire (or high speed portion) of
the train. Information again limited to the critical speed
Stability
location and some indication of the modal behavior. Ignoring
Several methods have been developed analogous to the API other reasons to perform string testing (e.g. fit checks for trains
unbalance response verification test with the objective to verify being sent to remote portions of the globe), rotordynamic
the stability predictions of centrifugal compressors. As with justification for the test should be limited to the information
the unbalance response, the intent is to measure more than just supplied by the test, namely, dynamic behavior of the coupling

spacer(s) and rigid coupling effects on the dynamic behavior of Balance bunker Rotor, bearings, and pedestal
individual bodies. As noted in API 684 [10], a train lateral support impact on stability (bunker bearings if used) at
analysis should be requested for unusually long or heavy various speeds.
coupling spacers or when rigid couplings are used. In this case,
the correct boundary conditions at the shaft ends are obtained Mechanical test (Vacuum) Rotor, job bearings and
when the train is modeled (train in this case refers to the bodies casing support impact on baseline stability (or basic
on either side of the coupling(s) in question.) log decrement reflecting the bearings and rotor only)
at various speeds.
Testing of this train configuration should mimic the
analytical model to verify the behavior in question. With a Performance test Rotor, job bearings, casing support
rigid coupling, the rotordynamic behavior of the bodies rigidly and reduced aerodynamic and seal behavior impact on
coupled will be affected. For unusually long or heavy coupling stability for a limited speed range.
spacers, the dynamics of the spacer can only be accurately Type I test Stability level and margin at nearly the
modeled/tested with the hubs attached to the shafts. same operating conditions as expected in the field.
Full Load / Full Pressure (FLFP) Test The range of gas conditions, inlet and discharge
pressures and flow rates may be limited as a result of
Type I tests provide a stable vs. unstable behavior the test setup.
indication of the rotor to specific test conditions. The test also
reveals the change in lateral behavior of the measured modes Test Benefits
(typically the 1st critical speed as with the mechanical test) due The benefits derived from the rotordynamic testing can be
to internal loading of the compressor and application of gas identified for the two groups of testing. Vibration
pressures and densities close to the design values at the seals. demonstration testing provides the purchaser the following:
The latter introduces seal dynamics into the testing that is only
achieved during the FLFP test. This is important for both Demonstration that vibration levels and critical speed
stability and synchronous behavior especially for machines separation margins (for those under the maximum test
incorporating hole pattern or honeycomb seals. The presence speed) specifications have been met All tests
of subsynchronous vibration due to phenomena such as stall,
A stable vs. unstable check is made for a specific test
surge or whirl may also be revealed during the FLFP test.
condition Type I test
Design Verification Tests
Proof of effectiveness of the balance procedure in
Unbalance Response meeting vibration level specifications All Tests
The unbalance response verification test (URVT) provides a Non-synchronous vibration levels examined Type I
measurement of how well the analytical predictions match the test, to some degree all tests
vibration produced from a known unbalance. This in turn adds
confidence to the internal deflection, separation margin and Design verification extends those benefits to:
unbalance sensitivity calculations made from that analysis. On Determining accuracy of unbalance response
the shop floor, the unbalance weight addition is typically calculation with regards to the unbalance sensitivity
limited to the coupling. Some turbines and overhung machines Unbalance verification (shop floor)
have the ability to add internal weights or weights to the
overhung impeller. Optionally, the test can be performed in the Determining predictive accuracy for mid-span
vendors balance bunker. The bunker permits more freedom in unbalances and deflections Unbalance verification
terms of weight placement and measurement of shaft deflection (at-speed balance bunker)
at points other than the jobs proximity probe location (mid- Reassurance that mid-span deflections are within
span, for example.) Of course, the analytical model needs to operating clearances for close clearance locations
reflect the setup in the bunker; bunker bearings if used and Unbalance verification (higher for at-speed balance
support stiffness of the bunker pedestals. Since the intent is bunker)
verify the accuracy of the analytical predictions, these
differences in configuration should not affect reaching that Verification of stability level prediction for system
conclusion. with no excitations (baseline stability) Stability
verification (at-speed balance bunker and during the
Stability mechanical run test)
The stability verification (SVT) test provides confidence in
Reassurance that rotordynamic model of shaft and
the analytical predictions regarding the stability level and
bearings is accurate URVT and SVT
position relative to the stability threshold. As with the
unbalance response verification, options are available regarding Robustness and optimization of machinery design
the platform or test configuration to perform this test. The URVT and SVT
results of each platform can be summarized below regarding
the accuracy of the analytic method to predict:

Correctness of the stability model of impellers, annular MRT, an SVT can measure the machines basic log decrement.
seals and other destabilizing mechanisms as well as Figure 2 shows the results of such testing versus speed for a
the effectiveness of any components which are particular test rig mounted on tilting pad journal bearings [12].
intended to reduce the destabilizing effects (shunt Measurement of the basic log decrement provides evidence as
bypass, swirl brakes, damper seals) Stability to whether or not the machines rotor/bearing/support system
verification (PTC Type I and Type II testing) has the robustness to counteract the destabilizing mechanisms
that it will experience in the field. As shown in Figure 2, such
The at-speed balance bunker can extend the benefits of the basic log decrement testing also provides the opportunity to
URVT by permitting weight placement at and measurement of assess competing tilting pad journal bearing models, a topic of
locations that are more sensitive to unbalance and the negative much debate in the industry [11, 12].
effects of high vibrations. For between bearing machinery,
critical close clearance locations that impact performance are
located at or near the mid-span where the first critical speed has
its peak deflection. In addition, unbalance creation is more
likely to occur at the mid-span due to deposits, erosion or
corrosion and is more likely to excite the 1st critical speed.
Unbalance placement at the coupling (typically the only readily
accessible location during the mechanical shop test) does not
excite the 1st critical speed significantly and provides minimal
information or assessment of the prediction accuracy of this
mode.
Typically, URVT on the shop floor is limited to the
coupling location. Journal probe vibration levels produced by
adding a 40W/N weight to the coupling is less than 0.00025 at
MCS. Performing the verification test in the bunker can permit
measurement of the mid-span and journal locations to a variety
of applied unbalances. Direct measurement of the relative
displacements along the rotor allows for closer scrutiny of the
predicted shaft and bearing dynamics as they relate to the
amount of modal bending and damping at the critical speed. It
should be noted that the intent of the test is to determine the
vendors ability to predict the unbalance response behavior of a
model containing a shaft, bearings and support structure. The
results may not be indicative of the actual behavior of the job
machine and relies on accurate modeling of the bunker pedestal
dynamics. However, the assurance gained from verification of
the predictive method in the bunker should carry over to the job
rotordynamic predictions. Figure 2) Base stability measurements versus speed
Vibration demonstration tests can reveal the presence of
instabilities. However, even if no problematic nonsynchronous RECOMMENDED PRACTICES OF ROTORDYNAMIC
vibrations are observed, the machines actual stability could be TESTING
very small (say less than the API design minimum requirement This section will focus on the rotordynamic testing of
of log decrement of 0.1) and close to the stability threshold. centrifugal compressors due to the complex dynamic behavior
This state of blindness with respect to the machines actual of this class of turbomachinery. Concepts developed in this
stability, as well as the significant uncertainties remaining in section can be applied to all types of machinery as they all
current modeling tools for stability prediction [11], can only be share certain aspects of rotating behavior. In addition, this
mitigated by directly measuring the machines log decrement section will focus on rotordynamics only. The tests listed
through a SVT. below, especially the non-verification testing, are also used to
Unlike the URVT, a SVT requires additional hardware in prove other aspects of the machines acceptability. These
the form on a temporarily, mounted shaker. While this is an aspects will not be discussed.
added complication, a SVT is often a cost and technically Vibration Demonstration Tests
effective alternative to the very expensive Type I test. Such
Type 1 testing is unlikely to receive project approval unless it is Mechanical Run Test
specified very early on during FEED. SVT can provide a Mechanical run test of the rotating equipment should be
valuable stability assessment of the machine during the other viewed as a minimal test to determine the rotordynamic
operations/tests that are often typically specified, namely, at- acceptability and should be considered for equipment that is
speed balancing, MRT or PTC 10 Type II performance tests. designed-for-purpose in contrast to equipment selected from a
When done in conjunction with high speed balance or the catalog.

Test P
Procedure closurre of the radiall bearings or fiix relaxation ddue to operation
n
for a typical meechanical test is
at tripp speed. Speedd versus time fo
Foor most types of
o equipment, API
A standards include specifific
shownn on Figure 3.
proceedures to followw during a meechanical test. Important test
factorrs related to th
he rotordynam
mic behavior off the equipmennt
are:
Test speed
ds/duration
Lube oil parameters (temperature,
( flow rate an
nd
viscosity)
Rotor/supp
port configuratiion
Test S
Speeds/Duratio
on
O
Operation of th he compressorr during the mechanical
m test
shoulld include a warm
w up portiion where the rotor speed is
incremmented in 10 1 minute in ntervals careefully avoidinng
excluusions zones of critical speeds and blade naturaal
frequuencies. Followwing the warmm up, operationn at trip speed is
speciffied for 15 miinutes followedd by a non-interrupted 4 hou ur
run aat maximum continuous
c speeed. A coastd down from triip F
Figure 3) Speed vvs. Time for a Tyypical Mechaniccal Test of a
followws the 4 hour run.
r Centrifugal Coompressor
Thhe warm up po ortion is includ
ded to ensure th hat the case an
nd Lube O
Oil Parameterss
rotor are given tim me to thermallly expand grad dually to avoiid
creatiing unintended d interferencess between the two leading to t Luube oil parametters should mim mic that used ffor the intended
rub ddamage. The warm
w up portioon also permits examination of o appliccation. Beariing flow, lubee oil inlet teemperature and
the rootor behavior at increasing speed intervals. Thus, faultts viscossity should be wwithin the specified operatinng ranges set byy
can bbe detected att less energetic stages poten ntially avoidin
ng the veendor for field operation. After stabilizatioon during the 4
rotor//stator damagee and project delays.
d Trip sp
peed is includeed hour rrun, lube oil inlet temperatture can be vvaried from the
to ennsure that vib bration levels (and overall operation) arre minimmum to maximuum specified rrange to examinne the effect on n
accepptable at this sppeed. The 4 hour
h run portioon is used to seet vibratiion levels andd bearing operaation. Operation at the range
the thhermal conditioons of the systeem. Bearing teemperatures an nd limits should be heldd until steady sstate conditionss are achieved.
vibrattion levels aree important facctors to watch during the tesst. Rotor//Support Confi
figuration
Stablee levels of eacch parameter need
n to be reacched during thhe
test. If any param meter shows signs
s of continnual movemen nt Thhe rotor configguration shouldd be as close tto the operating
g
(increease or decreasse), the test sh
hould be exten nded until stablle condittion as possiblle. The majorr concern centters around the
levelss are achieveed. If not, the t test shoulld be rejected d. overhuung weight associated w with the couppling. Often
n
Following the 4 hour h run, a co oastdown from m trip speed is mechaanical testing is done at partial rated power levelss.
performed. The coaastdown is used to determinee the overall an nd Smalleer shop driverrs need not haave, nor in som me cases could
synchhronous behav vior of the roto or/support systtem. This datta accommmodate, the laarger couplings of the job. IIt is essential to
o
will aalso be used as the baselin ne for verificaation testing, if closelyy mimic the ovverhung weighht of the job coupling. Thiis
performed. may rrequire that a ssimulator be addded to the driive assembly too
matchh the overhungg moment. The opposite m may be true fo or
O
Operation at triip speed durin ng the mechan nical run test is
i vendoors smaller caasings where tthe test coupliings overhung g
imporrtant for seveeral reasons. First, running g to trip speeed momeent is larger than the jobb coupling. Rotordynamic
increaases centrifuggal forces on the rotor wh hich may relaax predicctions should bbe used to deterrmine the impaact of using the
interfference fits and
d permit the rotors static sh
hape to changee. heavieer overhung weeights on the 2nd and 3rd criticcal speeds.
This m may alter the balance
b state of
o the rotor. Second, reachin ng
trip sspeed is neceessary for trip p testing in thhe field. It is Noote: For the cases where rrotordynamic predictions are
conveenient to reachh these speeds during testingg to identify an
ny used tto study the immpact of configuuration changees, it is strongly
y
potenntial problems. Finally, triip speed operration can hellp recommmended that verification ttesting be perrformed. The
identiify any criticaal speeds occcurring just ab bove maximum m increaased reliance on the rotorrdynamic moddel to predicct
continnuous speed th hat would otheerwise not be seen
s on the test behavvior that may not be fully ttested necessittates that some
standd. verificcation of the rootordynamic prrediction be unndertaken.
A
Additional shuttdown/startup transient opeeration can be b Test R
Requirements
addedd at the beginnning of the 4 hour test. When W compareed Foocusing on thee rotordynamicc behavior, thhe requirementts
againnst the coastddown followin ng the 4 hou ur test, thermaal for thhe mechanicaal test invollve the overrall and non n-
transiient behavior of the rotor can be exam mined and an ny synchrronous vibrattion levels, the separationn margins of o
changges to the balan
nce state of thee rotor can be identified.
i This identiffied critical sppeeds, % changge of vibrationn from MCS to
o
may prove useful in diagnosing g Mortons Efffect, clearancce trip sppeed, rubbing at close cleaarance locationns and bearing g
n
behavvior in terms of temperature. API is frequeently used to seet
these limits. Overall vibration lim
mit per API 617
7 [13] is defineed
as:
12000
,, 1.0
A
Additional req quirements may include limits on th he
ampliification factoor of critical speeds and time-dependen nt
vibrattion. API 684 4 [14] providess information on
o amplificatioon
factorrs, separation margin
m requireements and factors influencin
ng
vibrattions beyond speed. Addittional requirem ments as to thhe
therm
mal related trannsient maximum m behavior maay be imposed if Figurre 4) Bode Plot oof Inboard Probee
the M
Morton Effect phenomenon
p is likely. Rotorddynamics Moddeling
Test D
Deliverables Thhe rotordynam mic predictionns for the rootor should be
Thhe deliverabless of a typical mechanical
m test are: availaable prior to thhe test. Since the model anaalysis itself willl
not bee tested, the reesults are revieewed for probblem areas with h
Electronic recording of vibration and static data (i.ee. regardds to the analyssis and test reqquirements. Off concern:
bearing tem
mperatures)
Does the rootor meet sensiitivity requirem
ments? Per AP
PI
Overall vib
bration vs. timee & speed (tabu
ular or plot) 617 [16], an unbalancee application of twice the
Bode plot - synchronouss vibration (maag & phase) vs. residual (2 * 4W/N) should not producce probe levells
speed above the vibration limiit. Sensitive rrotors may no ot
meet the vvibration limitts on test reggardless of the
Vibration vs. frequencyy (at each speeed and pointts quality of thhe balance corrrection.
during the 4 hour run)
Are there sseparation marrgin problems especially with h
Statement of acceptability
y the 2nd and 3rd critical speeeds? To propperly model and
Seeveral of the deliverables
d require vibration n recording an nd predict thee location of m modes above the 1st criticaal
analyysis software//hardware bee present during d testingg. speed, userrs should verifyy that the overhhung weight fo
or
Discuussions with thhe vendor shou uld be held priior to testing to t the analyssis matches that used for the testt.
determmine what the capabilities off the test facilitty are and if an
ny Synchronouus vibration aat higher speeds should be
additiional equipmeent is needed. Native filess from the datta carefully exxamined for aan indication oof critical speedd
collecction system, representing
r th
he baseline maachine behavio or, encroachmeent. Figure 5 shows thee impact of a
may aalso prove useful for follow--up diagnostic work or to aid de potential m
mode just abovve 12,000 rpm m on vibrationn
field troubleshootinng. In both cases, addition nal informatio on magnitude and phase (circcled on plot).
may be desired thaat was not exaamined or plo otted during th he
shop testing.
A bode plot is shhown on Figurre 4. For the X probe, the first
criticaal speed is eaasily identified
d at 5197 rpmm with a peaak
respoonse of 0.72 mils
m 0-pk. The amplification n factor can be
b
calcuulated by multiplying the peeak response by b 0.7071 (haalf
poweer point reed dashed lin ne) and locatiing the speed ds
assocciated with thaat magnitude (g green dashed lines).
l For this
exammple, the ampliification factorr is 6.7. This
wouldd require a separation
s maargin of 17 1
. .
13.7%% of minimum m speed [15]. The amplificaation factor maay
also bbe calculated from
f the slope of the phase angle
a in radians,
, at the peak respo onse, Nc. Thiis takes the forrm:
.
6.4

Figuree 5) Impact on S
Synchronous Vibbration of Criticaal Speed Located
d
Thhe peak vibratiion with regardds to the API vibration
v limit is
i Above Operating Range
takenn in the operatin
ng speed rangee from minimu um to MCS. Fo or
a rangge of 7000 to 10000
1 rpm, ourr example casee would report a
maxim mum overall vibration
v levell of 0.5 mils pk-pk.
p (For this
exammple, the overall vibration is assumed to equal th he
synchhronous vibratiion.)
n
Test K
Knowledge/Verrification descriibed above is sufficient. For configuratioon #1, the fulll
four teest should be run. For configuration #2, an abbreviated d
Thhe knowledge gained from th he mechanical test is basicallly
test ccan be used if the indivvidual bodies were already y
a passs/fail determinnation of the rotordynamic behavior. Th he
mechaanically run tessted. (Unlike ##1, individual body dynamics
vibrattion levels anda separatio
on margins (typically
( onlly
are noot altered whenn tested coupled with a long oor heavy spaceer
conceerning the 1st critical
c speed) are
a checked to o show that theey
tube vversus using a moment siimulator of eequal overhung g
meet required levells. In addition n, the presencce of rubbing ata
momeent.)
close clearance lo ocations (deteermined durin ng the posttest
inspection) is used as a pass/fail performance of o the test. Th he Test R
Requirements
presence of non-sy ynchronous vib bration components may alsso
Foor configuratioon #1, the requuirements shouuld be identicaal
be ann indicator off other mechaanical faults (i.e.,
( instability
y,
to the Mechanical T Test described above. For coonfiguration #2 2,
mechhanical looseness).
additioonal requiremeents concerning the location of the coupling g
Thhe rotordynammic predictionss are not truly y verified in a naturaal frequency sshould be included incorporrating vibration n
mechhanical test. In fact, the shaft vibration norm
mally associateed measuurements madde at either eend of the cooupling. Peak k
with the quality off the rotordynaamic behavior is more closelly responnses at both off these locationns could be an indication of a
relateed to the qu uality of thee rotor balan nce performed d. coupliing natural freqquency interferrence.
Addittional checks of
o the predictiion accuracy canc be made by b
Test D
Deliverables
incorpporating other test requiremeents not requirred by API 61 17
7th Eddition: Noo difference froom the Mechannical Test.
Limit the discrepancy
d beetween predicteed vs. measureed Rotorddynamic Modeeling
critical speeed location
In either case, thhe rotordynamicc model used ffor the behavioor
o 1st criitical speed is likely the on
nly mode to be
b predicctions should include the cooupling and ttrain bodies on n
identiffied. either side. For exaample, a train comprising a turbine rigidly y
coupleed to a generrator, should be modeled in its entirety y.
o Provid des a check of the shaft bend ding and support
Similaarly, a power turbine drivinng a reinjectiion compresso or
stiffneess (stiffness iss the primary factor
f in criticaal
coupleed with a lonng spacer shouuld all be moodeled as three
speed location).
separaate rotors (PT,, spacer and ccompressor) cooupled togetheer
Limit the discrepancy
d beetween predicteed vs. measureed by thee flexible elem ments modeledd as shaft elem ments or lateraal
amplificatiion factor (AF)) springg elements. F Figure 6 presents the rotorrdynamic for a
rigidlyy coupled steam m turbine / gennerator train.
o Ampliification factorr is an indicato
or of the modaal
dampiing present.
o The AF
A can vary acrossa measureement location ns
due to
o runout and reesidual excitatiions in the shaaft
not fullly taken into account
a in the predictions.
p
Figuree 6) Rotordynam
mic Model for a S
Steam Turbine / Generator Train
n
Beyond what is measured durring the test, th he rotordynamiic
analyysis is relied up
pon to predict the internal deeflections of th
he Test K
Knowledge/Verrification
rotor (marginally verified by the t inspectionn for rubbing g),
sensittivity to unb balance (not checked) and d stability (no ot Moore knowledgee of the coupled train behavvior is obtained d
checkked). with tthe string test. However, thhe same statem ments regarding g
designn verification ccan be made ass with the Mechhanical Test.
Strin
ng Test
Full L
Load / Full Preessure
W
With regards to o rotordynamiccs, a string teest is needed to
t
accurrately determin
ne behavior for the following configurationss: Duue to the relaative cost of pperforming a ffull load / fulll
pressuure (FLFP) ttest, this optiion is typicaally limited to
11. A rigid couupling is used in the train Individual
I bod
dy centriffugal compresssors meeting all of the follow
wing criteria:
dynamics are affected by rigidly coupling them m
together. The rotorrdynamic mo odel and test Loss of prooduction produuces an unaccepptable financiaal
configuratiion should be performed with both bodiees impact
coupled. High pressuure applicationns
22. There exissts a long or heavy
h coupling spacer in th he Limited vvendor experiience with tthe design or
o
train In th
his case, the dy
ynamics of thee coupling are of
o application
concern. To model thee boundary co onditions at thhe
coupling hubs,
h the couplling should be tested installeed Rotordynammic analysis reveals increeased risks or
o
in the train
n. concerns w
with the rotor sttability
Test P
Procedure
A procedure siimilar to that of the Mech
hanical Test as
a
n
Test Procedure recommended trip setting does not leave margin for off-design
operation in the field nor deterioration of the balance state from
For the FLFP test, the procedure should be developed in
erosion or deposits. An agreed level should take into account
concert with the rotordynamic analysis. The FLFP test is
both factors and fall somewhere in between.
intended to study the stability of the centrifugal pressure under
similar conditions to the field. By applying load and pressure, Other requirements for the rotor and case vibration may
destabilizing forces of the seals and impeller/shroud include:
interactions are introduced including seal clearance changes
due to internal deflections as a result of reaching full pressure. Components of non-synchronous vibration to be less
Operating points during the FLFP test should be determined, in than 20% of the vibration limit or 0.2 mils p-p,
part, by the rotordynamic analysis and reflect operating points whichever is less
of minimum stability. These could represent operation at MCS No stall related vibration components
near surge (highest differential pressure) or, in some cases,
partial speed towards stonewall. Since this test as normally No instability related vibration (associated with re-
carried out is a pass/fail (e.g. the rotor is stable or not), test excitation of the 1st natural frequency)
conditions should match as close as possible to the field Maximum housing vibration less than 0.1 in/sec
conditions. The parameters of importance include gas MW,
power, suction and discharge pressure and temperature, speed Limitations regarding thermal instability (Morton
and mass flow. If the exact gas composition cannot be tested, Effect) vibrations
some of these parameters will have to be compromised. The
Test Deliverables
rotordynamic model should be used to determine an appropriate
combination of factors to produce the maximum instability Deliverables are similar to the mechanical run test and
drivers or minimum log decrement. Miranda and de Noronha should include data for all purchased components tested (as
[17] propose modifications to the FLFP ASME Type I test to with the string test.) Increased emphasis is placed on the FFT
better assess the stability of centrifugal compression equipment. plots of shaft vibration during the test as this is the best
The modifications were intended to create conditions to submit indicator of instability, stall, whirl and other phenomena that
the rotor to instability mechanisms as near as possible to the produce non-synchronous vibrations. Performance data should
design conditions rather than reproduce similarity for be recorded during the test to confirm the input used to predict
performance evaluation. The conditions were developed with the seal and impeller dynamic behavior and aide further
the aid of the rotordynamic stability predictions. stability analysis if needed.
As with the Mechanical Test, the FLFP test should consist Rotordynamic Modeling
of a warm up portion where the speed is increased gradually to
When FLFP testing is selected, the rotordynamic model
permit stabilization and examination of the behavior at lower
should be expanded as necessary to conform to the Level II
speeds. This is followed by an extended run at MCS to ensure
stability analysis requirements of API 617 [18]. Given the cost,
thermal equilibrium of the entire machine is achieved. During
effort and reasons to perform FLFP testing, a Level I stability
this test phase, it is recommended that the operating curve at
analysis is insufficient to predict the behavior accurately. The
MCS is explored from the surge control line to the end of curve
Level II model will reflect changes in the stability level to MW,
(stonewall.) This operation may include four to five operating
gas pressures and temperatures, seal clearances and rotor speed
points and may include other speeds as highlighted by the
to the best of the vendors or purchasers analytic capabilities.
rotordynamic analysis. (Note: Other factors may dictate
The Level I model uses an empirical relationship that either
operation at other points as required, i.e. defining the surge line
estimates these effects or doesnt take them into account at all
vs. speed, rated point defined at partial speed.)
when calculating the destabilizing forces present in the
Factors such as lube oil conditions and rotor assembly are machine.
expected to meet the field configuration and specified operating
Test Knowledge / Verification
ranges. When practical, the lube oil operating range should be
explored during the FLFP test. Lube oil inlet conditions impact The FLFP test will reveal the presence of instability, stall or
the dynamic behavior of bearings. As a critical factor in whirl for a prescribed set of operating conditions for the
determining the rotordynamic behavior, it is important to vary specific machines as-built conditions. The test is pass/fail as
these factors over the allowable ranges during testing. no measurement of the stability level or margin is included in
the test as described. Rotor stability at different gas
Test Requirements
compositions, other clearances within the tolerance range or
Test requirements for the FLFP test are defined by other operating points is determined by rotordynamic
agreement between the vendor and purchaser prior to the test predictions. The ability to operate successfully at these
and should be done at the contract stage. Holding the overall alternate points, which cannot be tested under all combinations,
vibration limit to the level specified for the mechanical run test depends on the stability margin (not measured by FLFP test) of
is impractical due to the additional rotor forces present during the machine.
the FLFP test. These include aerodynamic forces of the
impellers, stator-rotor interactions, seals forces and power
transmission forces. However, raising the limit to the vendor

Design Verification Testing failing the mechanism used to hold the weight in place.
Second, the method relied on larger vibration limits <0.002 p-
Such verification testing should be considered for the
p versus the current <0.001 p-p and good balance correction
following types of equipment:
practices to limit synchronous response on the test stand below
Special purpose (as defined by API) 0.0005 p-p. For this situation, 75% of the response would be
attributable to the verification weight. At the time, this was
Loss of production produces an unacceptable financial better than no test at all.
impact
In 1997, Nicholas et al. [19] defined an improved procedure
Services or applications with a history of bad actors to better correlate test stand vibrations to the analytic
(vibration related) predictions. This methodology was subsequently adopted by
Critical service (as defined by the user) API 617 7th Edition and is explained in API 684 [20]. Their
method took advantage of vibration diagnostic equipment that
In addition, verification testing of either the unbalance permitted vector subtraction of recorded databases. The
response or stability should be considered when the procedure can be summarized as:
rotordynamic analysis demonstrates concerns or higher risks
associated with the application. The verification testing can be 1. Record the probe synchronous readings during
used to mitigate those risks when applied correctly. coastdown from trip speed following the four hour
mechanical run test This represents the baseline
Unbalance Response Verification Test (URVT) vibration of the rotor
Test Procedure 2. Add the verification weight to the rotor The method
The URVT test is basically a comparison of measured is general enough to accommodate weight placement
versus predicted vibration levels for the application of a known anywhere on the rotor
unbalance. The test is routinely performed following the four 3. Bring the rotor back to MCS and achieve steady state
hour mechanical run test. For compressors, the verification conditions (i.e. constant bearing temperature, vibration
weight is applied to the coupling flange. This is the only magnitude and phase) Attempt to reproduce the
practical location available. For other machinery (e.g., steam operating condition of the machine at the conclusion
turbines, overhung single stage compressors), other locations of the four hour test in step #1. The sampling
may be available. Steam turbines may have field accessible frequency and speed increment should be identical to
balance planes and overhung compressors an impeller checknut that used in Step #1.
with a balance weight placement provision. The measured
response of the machine with the verification weight is 4. Record the probe synchronous readings during
compared against the analytical prediction using the same coastdown from trip speed following Step #3 This
weight and location. While this is not a complete check of the represents the combined vibration of the rotor
analytic unbalance response accuracy, as it only compares the (verification weight and residual unbalance)
models prediction at the probe locations for one weight 5. Vectorially subtract the synchronous vibration
placement, it is an important first step in ensuring the accuracy database taken in Step #1 from that recorded in Step
of the model. #4 The resulting data represents the response due to
It was recognized early on that an important aspect of the the verification weight placement
URVT test was to compensate for the residual unbalance in the 6. Compare the resultant data in Step #5 to the analytical
machine. This residual unbalance creates the synchronous predictions (incorporating the range of bearing
vibration witnessed during the mechanical test run and is clearances and oil inlet temperatures) This is the test
present before and after the verification weight is applied to the for accuracy of the unbalance response predictions
rotor. The residual unbalance left in a rotor after balancing
(either low or at-speed balancing) is uncharacterized and, Graphically (and using vector math) the method can be
therefore, cannot be modeled. Thus, the analytical model will described as:
have only the verification weight as an excitation source for the A baseline response reading, , (known) is taken at
response. one speed and one probe and is attributed to the
The initial attempt by API 617 6th Edition to compensate for residual unbalance, , in the rotor (unknown).
the residual unbalance was to apply a significant verification
weight to the coupling to raise the response to the vibration The subsequent response, , (known) taken after the
limit. The implication was that the majority of the response addition of the verification weight, , (known) to the
would be due to the verification weight placement. This had rotor is recorded. The net unbalance present in the
two important drawbacks (besides being analytically incorrect): rotor at this stage can be described as .
First, the amount of unbalance weight at the coupling needed to
raise the response to the vibration limit could reach unsafe Performing the vector subtraction of the 1st reading
levels. Coupling flanges are not designed with the intent of from the second yields the response, .
adding unbalance weight. Large rotating forces applied to the The accompanying vector math with the unbalance
coupling had a chance of failing the flange or, more probably, state of the rotor, ,

demonstrattes that the resultant respo onse, , is duue
only to thee verification weight
w added to
o the rotor.
URVT Veehicle
This iis shown on Fiigure 7. Shop Floor (Mechan anical Run Operating Sppeed Balance
Test) Bunnker
+ Testt performed wiith the job + Increased fflexibility for
configuratioon weight pllacement
+ Additional m measurement
points ppossible
+ Additional vverification of
the rotordynaamic analysis
Table 1) Compparing Advantagges of Each Testt Vehicle
1.. As requiredd by API 617 7th Edition, preedictions for the
close clearrance locationns and unbalaance sensitivity y
should be adjusted as dictated by tthe verification n
testing F For example, should the vverification tesst
Figuree 7) Determinatiion of Rotor Ressponse due to Veerification Weigh
ht show the rootordynamic annalysis is undeer predicting by y
A
All other aspeccts of the UR RVT should conform
c to th
he a factor off two, all respoonse levels callculated for the
requirrements of thee mechanical run test in terrms of oil inleet lateral anallysis should thhen by multipliied by two and d
tempeeratures, speed
ds and rotor sup
pport. sensitivity aand close clearrance requirem
ments rechecked
for compliaance.
Operaating Speed Baalance Bunker Option
Deepending on the vehicle, additional cheecks regarding g
A
An option existss of where to perform
p the UR
RVT. Operatin ng modal response
criticaal speed shapee, amplificationn factor and m
speedd balance bunkers (also refferred to as att-speed or hig gh can bee performed.
speedd balance bunk kers) can be used
u and has advantages
a oveer
the teest floor. The advantages aree associated wiith access to thhe Test D
Deliverables
rotor that running inn the bunker presents.
p The operating speeed Thhe deliverabless for the URVT
T should includde:
balannce bunker perrmits alternate locations for the verificatio on
weighht (i.e. mid-sppan, quarter-sp pan), use of multiple
m weightts Rotordynam mic analyticaal response ffor the setup p,
and aadditional shaftt vibration read
dings. The acccessibility of th
he weight plaacement and m magnitude andd measuremen nt
bunkeer permits ad dditional veriffication of thee rotordynamiic locations uused in the tesst. The respoonse should be
predicctions, i.e. mid
d-span responsse relative to jo
ournal locationns carried outt over the speccified range off clearance andd
for m
mid-span and qu uarter-span weiight placementts. oil inlet tem
mperature to pproduce the larrgest variation
ns
in radial beearing dynamiic coefficients.. The analysiis
Thhere is one important co omplexity when considerin ng should idenntify the criticcal speed locaation (response
performing the UR RVT test in th he balance bu unker; the roto or peaks) and agreed upon uunbalance response versus the
suppoort stiffness in the bunker wiill be differentt than the actuaal variation iin bearing dyynamic coeffiicients for the
machhine. Often th he bunker beaarings, while similar,
s are noot verificationn weight.
identiical to the job
b bearings. Different clearaances, L/D ratiio
and ppad arc length and the existennce of a levitattion pocket wiill Measured synchronous vibration daata should be
alter the stiffness and damping g coefficients. The support plotted for tthe following cconditions:
stiffnness of the peddestals will allso be differen nt than the jo ob Coastdownn following thee 4 hour test plotted for the
machhine. Bunker pedestals are inttended to be fllexible to perm mit four proximmity probe loccations Thiss represents the
adequuate velocity measurements
m used
u in most bunkers balancce baseline daata for the macchine (vibrationn as a result of
o
softwware. The sttiffness is a function of frequency an nd the residuall unbalance and forces in the rotor.)
inaccurate represen ntation will prroduce significcant differencees
betweeen predictions and measureements. This can lead to th he Coastdownn following pllacement of tthe verification
n
erronneous conclusio on that the mod
del of the job compressor
c (no
ot weight andd warmup att MCS (if neeeded) Thiis
usingg bunker bearin ngs and pedesttal stiffness) allso suffers from
m represents the vibrationn data for thhe residual +
the saame inaccuracy y. Table 1 presents the adv vantages of eacch verificationn weight.
optionn for URVT.
Vector suubtraction of baseline daata from the
verificationn + residual daata This willl be the rotors
measured reesponse to the verification w
weight.
Comparisonn of the meaasured peak rresponse speed
the 1st critical speed) to the ppredicted range
(typically th
Discrepaancies outside the permitted range (5% fo or
API 617) sshould be addrressed by correecting the roto or
model (i.e.., addressing the values used for supporrt
n
stiffness, bearing stifffness and/or shaft bendin
ng Nootice that meaasured probe reesponse with tthe verification n
stiffness). weighht does not resemble the preddicted response, Fig. 8. Thiis
is duue to the ressidual unbalannce response in the rotorr.
Compariso on of the meeasured respo onse magnitud de Perforrming the vecttor subtraction of the two daata files isolates
versus the predicted valu ue at the requirred speed(s) If the reesponse due ssolely to the vverification weight. This is i
predicted value
v is less thhan the measu ured value, theen compaared against thhe predicted ressponse on Fig 110.
the correctted analytical predictions
p bassed on the facto
or
of measured/predicted is supplied. Close C clearancce
and sensitiivity requiremments should be b reviewed fo or
compliancee.
Other analytical vs. measured reequirements as
a
specified in
n the test proceedure.
Tw wo examples of the URVT are provided to illustrate th he
proceedure. Both arre taken from ref.
r [19]. The first example is i
an 8 stage compresssor. Figure 8 plots the preedicted responsse
for a verification weight placeed at the cou upling locatio
on Figuree 10) 8 Stage Coompressor Meaasured vs. Prediccted Verification
n
Responnse
(40W
W/N magnitude)) of the compreessor for one drive
d end probee.
Figgure 10 illusttrates the neeed to remove the effect of o
0
0.25 residuual unbalance ddue to the relaative insensitivvity of the roto
or
to couupling unbalancce. Even at low amplitudes, 0.00015, the
Min Stiff measuured response ffalls within the maximum leevels calculated d
0
0.20
Max Stiff from tthe rotordynam mic response eespecially at M MCS where the
1X Amplitude (mils p-p)
requirrement was ennforced. In addition, the peaak response (1st

0
0.15 criticaal speed) falls within the rannge predicted bby the analysiss,
Figuree 8. For this exxample, no corrrection of the lateral analysis
0
0.10
was neeeded.
Thhe measured response of a three stagee compressors
0
0.05
baselinne and verificcation run is shown on Figgure 11. In the
secondd example, tthe measured response to the coupling g
verificcation weight is shown to eexceed the preedicted value at a
0
0.00 MCS by 25%, Figuure 12. The m measured peak rresponse of the
0 2000 4000 6000 80
000 10000 1200
00 14000 16000
1st crittical speed dooes occur withiin the range predicted by the
Rotor Sp
peed (rpm)
analyssis, Figure 11. For this case, the lateral anaalysis unbalance
Figurre 8) Response Plot
P of Coupling Verification Weeight for Min and
d responnse magnitudees at the closee clearance loccations and fo or
Max Bearing Stiffness 8W/N N unbalance should be increaased by a factoor of 1.25. The
Thhe correspond ding probe response for th he baseline an nd rub limmits and sensittivity requirem
ments should bee rechecked fo or
verifiication weight added runs are a plotted on n Figure 9). A complliance.
drive--end probe was w selected since s the verification weigh ht
(identtical to that useed in the analysis) was added d to the couplin
ng
and thhe drive-end would
w have thee largest respo
onse. The sho op
floor during the mechanical test t run was used for th he
verifiication test.
Fiigure 11) Measuured Probe Respoonse for 3 Stage Compressor
F
Figure 9) Measurred Probe Synch
hronous Responsse for 8 Stage
Compressor
n
Stabillity Verificatioon Testing (SV
VT)
SVT M
Methodology
Cuurrently, there are no industrry standards inn place to guide
the ennd-user and OE EM as to whatt methodologiees and practices
shouldd be used to acccurately perfoorm these SVT Ts. This tutoriaal
will atttempt to proviide some guidaance in this areea, specifically
y,
in thee three fundaamental elemeents of the teesting processs:
nonsyynchronous exccitation designn, measuremennt process, and d
Figurre 12) 3 Stage Co
ompressor Meeasured vs. Prediicted Verification
n dampiing ratio estimmation. Since thhis last elemennt dictates much h
Responnse of thee methodologgy requiremennts for the oother two, ou ur
discusssion will begiin with some gguidelines regaarding damping g
Rotorrdynamic Modeeling
ratio eestimation.
As previously mentioned, the
A t rotordynammic model fo or
SVT D
Damping Ratioo Estimation
URVT needs to maatch the config guration of the test setup. If a
balannce bunker is used, the sup pport stiffnesss of the modeel It should be nooted as to whhy the term damping ratio
shoulld include the dynamic effeccts of the bunk ker bearings an nd estimaation has beeen chosen instead of llog decremen nt
pedesstals. The rotoor model shoulld also reflect the
t weight of o measuurement. This choice is mmeant to empphasize severaal
the teest coupling (o
or bunker drivee assembly) in n its correct c.g
g. aspectts:
locatiion. The prredictions should cover thee minimum to t
1.. The fundam mental modal parameter off interest is the
maxim mum bearing stiffness
s quired by API 617 7th Edition
(as req n)
damping raatio.
basedd on the speciffied ranges forr the radial beaaring clearancees
and ooil inlet temperratures. Finallly, the analysiss should speciffy 2.. Estimation of the dampping ratio invvolves a postt-
the predicted rangees for the 1st critical
c speed and
a verificatio on processing analysis of the measurem ment data. The
respoonse magnitudees (additional information as a necessary to t resultant daamping ratio is not measureed directly, it is
determmine complian nce with other requirements.)
r only estimaated.
Suummarizing th he aspects off the rotordyn
namic modelin
ng 3.. mation technique
Logarithmiic decrement iss its own estim
criticaal to this testin
ng: for dampingg ratio.
Support stiiffness to repreesent the test veehicle Daamping ratio eestimation is a subset of m modal parameteer
identiffication. Sincce this identtification occuurs while the
o Designn configuration
n for URVT peerformed durin
ng
machiine is operatinng, such testinng is often callled operationaal
the meechanical run test on the shop
p floor
modall analysis whicch is a subset of the more ggeneral field of o
o Refleccting the beaarings and peedestals of th
he systemm identificationn. Identificatioon of other modal parameterss,
operatting speed balaance bunker such aas natural freqquency and m mode shapes, hhas historicallyy
receivved much greaater attention. This is likelly due to theiir
Verificatio
on weight placeement and mag
gnitude imporrtance with resspect to resonaance problems, a predominan nt
Rotor vibraation at the pro
obes or other lo
ocations as useed concerrn in every fielld whereas stabbility is not as much so.
during the URVT Ass mentioned earlier, the eestimation invvolves a postt-
o Includ
de support mottion if probes are
a mounted on
o processsing analysis of the measureement data. W While there are a
bunker pedestals multittude of estimaation techniquues available aand continually y
emergging, each techhnique basicallly involves a ccurve fitting of
o
Test K
Knowledge / Verification
V the daata. Some aree very simple and deal withh just a single
Thhe verification test provid des a determ mination of th he while others currve-fit multiplee channels data
responnse channel, w
accurracy of the ro otordynamic predictions
p in a quantitativve at oncce. These tecchniques are bbeing developped by variou us
fashioon. Beyond the pass/fail observational nature of th he commmunities, such aas controls andd speech processsing, with eachh
vibrattion demonstrration tests, the
t URVT deemonstrates th he techniique designed tto utilize time or frequency ddomain data.
predicctive versus measured
m respoonse discrepan ncy to a know wn It is beyond thee scope of this tutorial to discuss all the
weighht placed on thhe rotor. Perfoormed correctly y, the operatin
ng aspectts of damping ratio estimatiion. However, it is importan
nt
speedd bunker can n provide add ditional accuracy assurancees that mmachinery enggineers undersstand some oof the peculiaar
regardding the mod dal response (ii.e., mid-span versus journaal challeenges and the rrecommended ppractices. Wheen conducting a
respoonse ratio) and rotor sensitiviity to locationss other than th
he SVT oon a turbomacchine, the estimation processs faces severaal
couplling2. challeenges when deaaling with the m
measurement ddata:
2 st
Note::Forsomewellbaalancedandwellddampedrotors,the1 criticalspeed d
maynootbeidentifiableo
ontheteststandaasaclearpeakintthevibrationdata
andwillnotbeappreciablyexcitedbyave erificationweightplacedatthe machin es.AlloptionsreggardingtheuseoffthebalancebunkkerforURVT(e.g.,
ng.Performingthetestinthebalan
couplin ncebunkerenablesmidspanweightt midspaanprobes,alternaateunbalanceweigghtlocations)shouldbespecified
st
s
placem
mentandgreatere excitationofthe1 criticalspeedforrbetweenbearingg andagrreedduringcontraactdevelopmentw withthevendor.
n
The data is typically from only a few vibratio
on
response lo
ocations.
The data contains add ditional respoonse from thhe
significant presence of immeasurrable, internaal
excitationss within the machine
m such
h as unbalancee,
misalignment, aerodynam mics, etc.
The data likely contain ns contribution n from multiplle
modes, nott just the modee of interest.
The data is from a system whose w dynamiic
characterisstics are not lik
ke those for staatic, nonrotatin
ng
structures.
Eaach of the above challenges influences what w techniquees
can bbe used for acccurate stability
y estimation. Some techniquees
rely on a large number
n of sennsors, meaning g they are no ot
approopriate here beecause responsse measuremen nts are typicallly
only aavailable at a few
f restricted locations
l on a machine. Otheer
technniques assume the system being tested is a static structurre
whose dynamic properties
p are symmetric or o self-adjoinnt.
Technniques relying on such an asssumption are not appropriatte
for a turbomachine where fluids within
w the machhine create nonn-
symm metric cross-couupling in the sy
ystem [21,22]. Figure 13) Example Caampbell Diagram
m
Peerhaps the bigg gest estimationn challenge is the
t fact that thhe Too date, many pprevious SVT investigators have relied on n
measuurements from m a rotors SVT T often consistts of significan
nt the as sumption that only the modee of interest, tyypically the firsst
contriibutions from several modees, more than just solely th he forwarrd mode, is pparticipating inn the responsee. It is easy to o
modee of interest. Many
M structurees possess verry close naturaal undersstand why thiss assumption has historicallly been applied d
frequuencies which can be difficult to identify through th he by thee industry. Firrst, the measurrements often only show one
mation process. Sharing this high modal
estim m densitty peak in the frequuency responnse functions.. Second, the
charaacteristic, rotorr systems posseess pairs of sisster modes, on ne nonsyynchronous exccitation was appplied in the fo forward circulaar
forwaard whirling and a one backw ward that are often in closse directiion with the intent of onlyy exciting thee first forward
proximity and sharee similar modall characteristiccs. whirliing mode. Andd finally, singlle degree of freeedom (SDOF F)
Thhe easiest way y to observe the close prox ximity of thesse dampiing estimationn techniques, ssuch as ampliification factorr,
sisterr mode pairs isi through a Campbell
C diaggram. Figure 13 1 phase slope or mecchanical log deecrement, invoolve convenien nt
shows the Campb bell diagram for a multistage centrifugaal and ssimple formullas that are familiar to eevery vibration n
comppressor. Typicaal for between n-bearing macchines, the first speciaalist.
modee sisters remainn very close in frequency as speed
s increases, Unnfortunately, eeven when foorward circulaar excitation is i
wheree the backward d modes frequuency is slighttly less than thhe applieed and only onne peak is pressent in the meaasurements, the
forwaard mode. The second mode sisters
s becomee more and morre sister backward modde can be exciited, reducing tthe accuracy of o
separrated with speeed, indicating g the strongeer influence of o the S SDOF dampinng estimators. Figure 14 illustrates thiis
gyrosscopics and support
s anisottropy for thesse sisters. Th he behavvior for a sim mulated rotor ssystem where the individuaal
influeence of gyrosscopics and support
s anisottropy is highlly modess response cann be distinguishhed. Even thouugh the forward
depenndent on the overall rotorr system charracteristics. Fo or circulaar excitation iss being applieed and only a ssingle response
exammple, unlike thee between-bearing compresso or, the first sisteer peak iis measured, thhe backward m mode is excitedd. Because twoo
modees for an overhung compresssor will be veery sensitive to t modess are respondinng, instead of jjust one, the peak is distorted
speedd due to thee overhung im mpellers stro
ong gyroscopiic and, iin this case, bbroadened, froom that due too just a single
momeent. mode..
n
SVT N
Nonsynchronouus Excitation
Ouur SVT methhodology disccussion will nnext focus on n
aspectts regarding the nonsyncchronous exciitation that is i
necesssary to measurre a modes staability. The dessign of both the
excitaation device itsself, and the signals that it applies to the
machiine, are importaant elements oof the SVTs suuccess.
Unnless the subjeect machine is supported bby radial active
magneetic bearings,, the nonsynnchronous exxcitation musst
originnate by some temporary m means. The earrliest forms of o
excitaation were froom impacts m made directlyy on the roto or
[24,255,26]. More reccently, shakerss were mounteed externally on
n
machiines bearing hhousings [4,277] with an exaample shown in n
Figuree 15.
Tyypically installled on the nnon-drive, ouutboard of the
machiine, electromaagnetic shakerss have emergeed as the mosst
populaar device for nonsyncchronous exccitation. Two o
methoodologies havve been used to temporarrily attach the
Figure 14) Modal Participation fro
om Nonsynchron
nous Forward, shakerrs laminated rrotor assemblyy, a bolted exteension has been
n
Circular Excittation [23] used bby several invvestigations [228,29,30] whiile others have
W
While the methhodologies associated with SVTs
S dampin
ng mountted a tapered sleeve [9,31]. Figures 16 annd 17 illustrate
estim
mation are stilll evolving, th
here are seveeral ones, lon
ng exampples of these tw
wo attachment designs.
considered good practice in the system m identificatioon
commmunity, that havve emerged as recommendedd practices:
Multiple degree of frreedom (MDO OF) techniquees
provide th he most reliiably accuratee estimates of o
damping ratio
r without relying on an
ny assumption ns
about a particular machines rotordynamiic
characterisstics. To datte, there aree two MDO OF
techniquess which have demonstrated
d reeliable accuraccy
for stabiliity verificatio
on testing: multiple
m outpuut
backward autoregression n for time do
omain responsse
measuremeents, and the prediction errror method fo or
frequency response functtion measurements.
To resolvee the closely spaced
s sister modes
m of rotorrs,
MDOF teechniques should be applieed to multiplle
output (M
MO) data sets consisting of response from m
multiple lo
ocations along the
t rotor.
Any cand didate estimaation techniqu ue should be b
validated using sim
mulated exccitations an
nd
measuremeents that follo ow the method dology planneed
for shop teesting but are taken from a simulated roto or
system wh here the eigenv
values and stability are known n.
This valid dation should d assess the potential fo or
asymmetry y in the bearing
g system and various
v levels of
o
stability. While
W a simplee rotor system can be used fo or
such valid dation, the mosst preferable choice
c is to usse
the model of the machinee to be tested.
Because of the variability annd evolving naature of OEMss
adopttion of estimaation techniquees, some end-u user companiees
will iindependently verify the SVVT measuremeents using theeir
own ttrusted methoddologies. This practice is dirrectly analogou
us
to ennd-users indeependent veriification of calculations
c fo
or
rotorddynamic pred dictions and aerodynamicc performancce
testinng. Figuree 15) Shaker Mouunted on Bearinng Pedestal in Baalance Bunker [4
4]
n
protect the machine from damage during the testing, it should
also be recognized by all parties that typical vibration
acceptance criteria are not applicable during a SVT. Regardless
of the exciters impact on the rotordynamics, it is a good
practice to design the shakers rotor assembly with a balance
correction plane as well as check balance the rotor assembly
with the shaker installed prior to testing. Low synchronous
vibrations help improve the quality of the SVT measurement
data and the resulting damping estimation.
Finally, the frequency content and direction of excitation
must be determined. Both must provide the type of
measurement data needed for the damping estimation technique
originally chosen. If time domain estimation techniques are
employed, the best signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can be obtained
through a blocking test. A type of tuned-sinusoidal method
[32], blocking testing effectively tries to isolate a mode by
exciting at its natural frequency and in its predominant
direction. Several investigators have successfully applied this
Figure 16) Shaker with Bolted Shaft Extension [30]
excitation method [9,27,33] for stability verification testing of
rotor systems. Direction of the blocking excitation, forward or
backward whirling or along one axis, can be chosen to best
excite the mode of interest.
If a frequency domain estimation technique is chosen, the
required measurement data consists of frequency response
functions (FRF) across the frequency range containing the
mode of interest. Calculated using correlation functions that
consider noise in the system, a measured FRF has units of
response (displacement, velocity or acceleration) divided by
force. The frequency range is spanned by the excitation device
using stepped sine, chirp or pseudorandom signals, with the
final choice determined by the desired SNR and testing time.
Stepped sine is generally considered to have the best SNR,
while other frequency signals can provide faster measurement
times.
The direction of the applied excitation must be considered
when the FRFs are being calculated during the measurement
process. When exciting in only one direction, such as along the
Figure 17) Shaker with Sleeve Mounted on Tapered Shaft End [9] machines horizontal splitline or along one proximity probes
There are several key objectives that are important to the axis, the FRFs are easily calculated according to single input,
successful design of the excitation device: multiple output (SIMO) procedures. Contrary to popular
thinking, such SIMO testing along only a single axis is
Design for ease of installation and removal during sufficient to excite the first forward whirling mode and can
shop testing, provide accurate damping ratio estimates when used with an
appropriate MDOF frequency domain technique.
Minimize alteration of the machines balance state and
rotordynamics when the device is installed, Figure 18 presents the FRFs from a SIMO test conducted on
a simulated rotor system with known stability. In this case,
Provide sufficient force capacity and bandwidth to horizontal excitation is applied at the inboard bearing and four
excite the mode of interest when the machine is FRFs are obtained, one for each of the four bearing probes.
operating at the test conditions. Noise has been added to the measurements to simulate real
When utilizing an electromagnetic shaker, its laminated world conditions. Table 2 compares the actual stability levels of
sleeve or shaft extension can add sufficient weight and inertia the first sister modes with that obtained using the SIMO
to significantly alter the machines baseline dynamics. measurement data and a MDOF estimation technique. For
Rotordynamic calculations should be conducted during the either horizontal (SIxMO) or vertical (SIyMO) forcing,
shakers design process to examine the impact on the machines excellent accuracy is achieved not only for the primary mode of
rotordynamics, in particular, to ensure minimal impact on the interest (1F) but also its sister backward mode (1B). Vertical
mode of interests stability and frequency. If it is undesirable to forcing provides a slightly more accurate damping estimate for
alter the test speeds, one may have to accept lower than desired the 1F mode because the mode shape is more vertically
separation margins for other critical speeds. While it is vital to oriented for this particular machine. Such performance has

givenn investigators the confidencee to use single input excitatio
on operatting parameters of the machinne (speed, inleet pressure, etc..)
on inddustrial machin
nes [9]. must bbe held withinn that assumed for the modeliing predictionss.
Oil suupply temperatuure has provenn to be an operaating parameteer
to cloosely monitorr and control especially w when trying to
reconccile the differeence between mmeasurements and prediction ns
[9]. W Without propper control of the bias currents, an n
electroomagnetic shaaker can imposse a static forcce on the shaftt.
Thereffore, the operaating position oof the journal bbearings should
d
be al so closely m monitored. A significant shhift in journaal
operatting position w when the shakker is energizedd will alter the
bearinngs stiffness aand damping characteristics, and thus, the
measuured stability of the machine.
W
When a frequuency domainn estimation technique is i
emplooyed, accurate measurementt of the FRFs is vital to the
successs of the SVT T. Often overloooked by the tturbomachineryy
industtry, there are tw
wo recommendded practices ooriginating from
m
the m
modal testing ccommunity thaat should be aadhered to with h
respecct to these FRFF measurementts:
Calculationn of any frrequency respponse function n
requires meeasurement of the response ooutputs and the
forcing inpuuts magnitudee and phase.
The cohereence of each F FRF should bbe examined to
ensure the quality of thhe measuremeent around the
mode of intterests frequenncy.
It iis often assum
med that, once tthe current ammplitudes are seet
in its control systemm, an electromaagnetic shakerr will produce a
force of constant amplitude annd phase acrooss the whole
Figuure 18) Simulateed Rotor FRF Measurements from Excitation in frequeency range. H However, like other exciter devices where
only Horizontaal Direction forcee drop-out caan occur, elecctromagnetic sshakers can be
suscepptible to irreggularities in thhe amount off force that is i
M
Mode 1F 1B
actuallly applied too the rotor when traverssing a naturaal
Paarameter (%) d (ccpm) (%) d (cpm)
frequeency. A highlly amplified nnatural frequenncy can create
A
Actual 4.62 411 10 8.56 3809
S
SIxMO 4.54 411 11 8.39 3805
large vvibration ampllitudes at the sshaker, resultinng in significan
nt
S
SIyMO 4.62 411 11 9.02 3799 differeences betweenn the actual currents being applied to the
shakerr and those speecified by the ccontrol system..
T
Table 2) Modall Parameters Obtained
O from SIMO
S FRF Thherefore, like aany force transdducer used in m
modal testing, iti
M
Measurements of a Simulatedd Rotor System
m [33] is recoommended thaat the electrom magnetic shakeer be calibrated
to deteermine the relaationship betwween the measuured parameterrs
A
As mentioned earlier,
e it is a popular choicce to excite th he (such as flux or coil currents and rotor displaceements) and the
rotor in a forward circular directtion. However, it is often no ot forcess applied to the rotor. W Without measuurement of the
recoggnized that excciting in a forwward circular oro any ellipticaal FRFs amplituddes at the mode
shakerrs force durinng testing, the F
fashioon essentially means
m that a multiple
m input, multiple
m outputts of intterest could be distorted, resulting in poor stability y
(MIMMO) test is beiing conducted.. Whenever the t excitation is estimaates.
not allong a single axis,
a but takess any form of elliptical shapee,
two forcing inputss are required d creating a multiple inpu ut SVT R
Rotordynamic M
Modeling
situattion. When multiple
m input testing is preferred, such as a In addition to tthe issues disccussed for UR RVT, there are
whenn using forwaard circular excitation,
e MDDOF frequenccy severaal additional modeling asspects that nneeded to be
domaain estimation techniques cannot be applied unless th he considdered for stabbility verificaation testing. As mentioned
measuured FRFs aree calculated fromfr force and d response datta earlierr, rotordynamiic calculations should be conducted during g
from two MIMO teests: one with forward
f circulaar input, and th
he the shhakers designn process to examine its impact on the
other backward circular input. Ewins [34], Maia [32] an nd machiines behavior.. This examinaation should innclude not only y
Pintellon [35] proviide details on the practical and theoreticaal the im
mpact on the moode of interests stability andd frequency, bu
ut
aspeccts of such multiple input testting. the impact on other critical speeds and ttheir separation
also th n
SVT Measurement Process marginns.
Faair correlationn with the predictions reequires carefu ul W

When tilting paad journal beearings are em mployed, it is
i
attenttion during thee measurementt process. Thiss means that th
he heavilly debated whhether the beaarings should be represented
using their full cooefficients whhich allow w whirl frequency
y
n
dependent stiffness and damping characteristics, or using the Plot showing the final measured coherence
traditional, whirl frequency independent model of associated with the measured FRF
synchronously reduced coefficients [11,12]. Current API
standards require the use of synchronously reduced coefficients Comparison of the measured stability (log decrement
for predictions. However, it is recommended that measurements and damped natural frequency) versus the predicted
should be correlated with predictions using both representations range for each tested operating condition
to help shed light on this ongoing debate. Comparing the Depending on the specifics of the acceptance criteria,
correlations of the two representations is especially important the resulting stability predictions from the corrected
for base stability testing when using bearings with center pivots analytical model should presented to determine
and low (<0.4) pad preloads. acceptability of the design.
If an SVT is conducted as part of a performance test (e.g. SVT Requirements
PTC 10 type I or II), the measurements should be correlated
with API Level II stability predictions that include the Currently, there are no industrial standards in place for
dynamics created by the machines internal seals and other guidance on what acceptance criteria should be applied for this
components. Each manufacturer has its own methodology for type of design verification testing. Individual OEMs and end-
how these internal dynamics are modeled and analyzed. As users are developing their own acceptance criteria in the
required by API Level II stability analysis procedures, this meantime. It is recommended that the criteria should have a
methodology should be explained and documented by the similar two-step evaluation process as that standardized for the
manufacturer. URVT:
SVT Deliverables 1. How well does the original rotordynamic model and
analysis predict the measured stability results?
For each test condition, the predicted range of stability
(log decrement and damped natural frequency) for the 2. If the model has poor accuracy with respect to the
machine with, and without, the presence of the shaker measured stability results, does the machine still have
device. acceptable rotordynamic performance over the full
range of design/operation after its model has been
Description of the damping ratio estimation technique corrected based on the test results?
employed
When assessing the accuracy the stability measurements
Measured operating data for each stability test and predictions, there is a key difference with the correlations
condition, such as: done during an URVT: the measured vibrational response
should not be under-predicted for the URVT, while the
o Speed
measured log decrement should not be over-predicted in the
o Inlet and discharge pressure and temperatures SVT.
o Molecular weight The exact methodology used to correct the model should be
agreed upon, prior to testing, by the purchaser and OEM. Once
o Oil supply pressure, temperature, and flow rate again, this is another area where manufacturers and end-users
When stability estimates are obtained from outputs are developing their own methodologies. Pettinato et al. [9]
time transient data, applied two methods to correct the model and determine
acceptability of a particular centrifugal compressor design.
o Sampling frequency One method applied a bias shift using the base stability
o Number of transients events recorded measurements, while the second method applied a slope
correction based on measurements that included aerodynamic
o For each output location and operating condition, excitations within the machine.
plot showing the measured time transient data
SVT Knowledge / Verification
When stability estimates are obtained from frequency
response functions, Analogous to the knowledge obtained from the URVT, the
stability verification test assesses the rotordynamic predictions
o Description and records of the calibration of the accuracy to help verify a designs stability characteristics
input force measurement beyond the pass/fail nature of the vibration demonstration tests.
o Number of averages taken, window type and No nonsynchronous vibrations may be observed during a full
overlap percentage load, full pressure test. However, the machines stability level
(log decrement) and margin away from instability remain in
o Frequency resolution question. For the selected test conditions, the SVT yields some
o For each input/output location and operating insights by providing a measurement of the stability level and,
condition, using this measurement in conjunction with the predictions, an
estimate of the machines stability threshold.
Plot showing the final measured FRF
(magnitude and phase) and the identified FRF
from the estimation technique

Since we cannot test every situation, we must rely on the 10. API Standard Paragraphs Rotordynamic Tutorial: Lateral
accuracy of the model to design for these other situations. The Critical Speeds, Unbalance Response, Stability, Train
SVT provides at least some verification concerning the Torsionals and Rotor Balancing, API Recommended
reliability of the models stability predictions. Practice 684 2nd Edition, August 2005, Paragraph 2.3.8.
11. J. A. Kocur, J. C. Nicholas and C. C. Lee, Surveying
CONCLUSIONS
Tilting Pad Journal Bearing and Gas Labyrinth Seal
Rotordynamic testing is an effective and efficient tool, Coefficients and Their Effects on Rotor Stability,
when applied appropriately, to mitigate machinery risks. The Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Turbomachinery
tutorial presented the basis for determining the machinery Symposium, Texas A&M University, pp. 1-10, 2007.
application risks. Test options available to address those risks,
12. C. H. Cloud, E. H. Maslen and L. E. Barrett, Rotor
test procedures, preparation for the test, knowledge gained from
Stability Estimation with Competing Tilting Pad Bearing
each test and the testing benefits were discussed. The
Models, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol.
difference between vibration demonstration and design
29, pp. 90-106, May 2012.
verification testing was highlighted. The principle difference
being that vibration demonstration tests assess the acceptability 13. Axial and Centrifugal Compressors and Expander-
of rotordynamic behavior in a pass/fail mode while design Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry
verification testing is used to confirm the rotordynamic Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002,
predictions. This verification provides confidence in Chapter 1, Paragraph 2.6.8.8.
extrapolating the design (by the vendor) and operation (by the
14. API Standard Paragraphs Rotordynamic Tutorial: Lateral
purchaser) beyond the machines as-built and specific shop test
Critical Speeds, Unbalance Response, Stability, Train
conditions. The recommended practices of performing the test
Torsionals and Rotor Balancing, API Recommended
options for vibration demonstration and verification testing
Practice 684 2nd Edition, August 2005, Sec 2.7.3, pp. 2-63
concluded the tutorial.
to 2-68 and Sec. 3.5.2, pp. 3-38 to 3-43.
REFERENCES 15. Axial and Centrifugal Compressors and Expander-
Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry
1. C. Jackson, Shop Testing Is It Worth It?, Orbit
Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002,
Magazine, June 1998, pp. 10-15.
Chapter 1, Paragraph 2.6.2.10.
2. J. Heagney, Fundamentals of Project Management,
16. Axial and Centrifugal Compressors and Expander-
AMACON, 2011.
Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry
3. C. Carlson, Effective FMEAs: Achieving Safe, Reliable, Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002,
and Economical Products and Processes Using Failure Chapter 1, Paragraph 2.6.2.11.
Mode and Effects Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
17. M. A. Miranda and R. F. de Noronha, ASME PTC 10
2012.
Modified Test for Mechanical Assessment of Centrifugal
4. K. E. Atkins and R. X. Perez, Assessing Rotor Stability Compressors, Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth
Using Practical Test Procedures, Proceedings of the Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M University,
Twenty-First Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M 2007, pp. 87-93.
University, pp. 151-158, 1992.
5. Axial and Centrifugal Compressors and Expander- Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry
Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002,
Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002, Chapter 1, Paragraph 2.6.2.11.
Chapter 2, Paragraph 4.3.1.
19. J. C. Nicholas, S. L. Edney, J. A. Kocur and J. F. Hustak,
6. Axial and Centrifugal Compressors and Expander- Subtracting Residual Unbalance for Improved Test Stand
Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry Vibration Correlation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth
Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002, Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M University,
Chapter 2, Paragraph 4.3.3.2. 1997, pp. 7-18.
7. Performance Test Code on Compressors and Expanders, 20. API Standard Paragraphs Rotordynamic Tutorial: Lateral
ASME, PTC 10-1997, Paragraph 3.2.1, p. 11. Critical Speeds, Unbalance Response, Stability, Train
Torsionals and Rotor Balancing, API Recommended
Practice 684 2nd Edition, August 2005, Sec 2.9, pp. 2-97 to
Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical and gas Industry 2-104.
Services, API Standard 617 7th Edition, July 2002,
Chapter 1, Paragraphs 2.6.3 & 2.6.4. 21. Nordmann, R., 1982, Modal parameter identification and
sensitivity analysis in rotating machinery, Proceedings of
9. B. C. Pettinato, C. H. Cloud and R. S. Campos, Shop Conference on Rotordynamic Problems in Power Plants,
Acceptance Testing of Compressor Rotordynamic Stability IFToMM, pp. 95-102.
and Theoretical Correlation, Proceedings of the 39th
Turbomachinery Symposium, 2010, pp. 31-42.

22. Nordmann, R., 1984, Identification of modal parameters 35. Pintelon, R. and Schoukens, J., 2001, System
of an elastic rotor with oil film bearings, ASME Journal of Identification: A Frequency Domain Approach, IEEE
Vibration, Acoustics, Stress , and Reliability in Design, Press.
Vol. 106, pp. 107-112.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
23. Cloud, C. H., Maslen, E. H., and Barrett, L. E., 2009,
Damping ratio estimation techniques for rotordynamic The authors wish to thank ExxonMobil for its support and
stability measurements, ASME Journal of Engineering for Jim Byrne, Minhui He, Eric Maslen and Jos Vzquez from
Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 131, No. 1, January, pp. BRG for their helpful suggestions.
012504.
24. Newkirk, B. L., 1924, Shaft Whipping, General Electric
Review, Vol. 27, March, pp. 169-178.
25. Newkirk, B. L. and Lewis, J. F., 1956, Oil film whirlAn
investigation of disturbances due to oil films in journal
bearings, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 78, pp. 21-27.
26. Hagg, A. C., 1946, The influence of oil-film journal
bearings on the stability of rotating machines, ASME
Transactions, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 68, pp.
A211-A220.
27. Kanki, H., Fujii, H., Hizume, A., Ichimura, T., and
Yamamoto, T., 1986, Solving nonsynchronous vibration
problems of large rotating machineries by exciting test in
actual operating condition, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Rotordynamics, IFToMM, pp.
221-225.
28. Baumann, U., 1999, Rotordynamic stability tests on high-
pressure radial compressors, Proceedings of the Twenty-
Eighth Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M
University, pp. 115-122.
29. Moore, J. J., Walker, S. T., and Kuzdzal, M. J., 2002,
Rotordynamic stability measurement during full-load full-
pressure testing of a 6000 psi re-injection centrifugal
compressor, Proceedings of the Thirty-First
Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M University, pp.
29-38.
30. Bidaut, Y., Baumann, U., and Al-Harthy, S. M. H., 2009,
Rotordynamic stability of a 9500 psi reinjection
centrifugal compressor equipped with a hole pattern seal
measurement versus prediction taking into account the
operational boundary conditions, Proceedings of the
Thirty-Eighth Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M
University, pp. 251-259.
31. Takahashi, N., Magara, Y., Narita, M., and Miura, H.,
2012, Rotordynamic evaluation of centrifugal compressor
using electromagnetic exciter, ASME Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 134, pp.
032505.
32. Maia, N. M. M. and Silva, J. M. M., eds., 1997,
Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis, Research
Studies Press Ltd..
33. Cloud, C. H., 2007, Stability of Rotors Supported by Tilting
Pad Journal Bearings, PhD dissertation, University of
Virginia.
34. Ewins, D. J., 2000, Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and
Application, Research Studies Press Ltd., 2nd Edition.

API Rotos T01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

API Rotos T01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the Forty-Second Turbomachinery Symposium

October 1-3, 2013, Houston, Texas

SHOP ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING OPTIONS, OBJECTIVES, BENEFITS AND PRACTICES

Dr. John A. Kocur, Jr. Dr. C. Hunter Cloud

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Options Test Objectives

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

requirrement was ennforced. In addition, the peaak response (1st

Fiigure 11) Measuured Probe Respoonse for 3 Stage Compressor

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Faair correlationn with the predictions reequires carefu ul W

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Copyright 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

You might also like