Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
SHOP ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING – OPTIONS, OBJECTIVES, BENEFITS AND PRACTICES
Dr. John A. Kocur, Jr. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering
3225 Gallows Road, Rm 2A-0601 Fairfax, VA 22037-0001
(703) 846-2275 [email protected]
Dr. C. Hunter Cloud BRG Machinery Consulting LLC
703 Highland Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903
(434) 293-9926 [email protected]
John A. Kocur, Jr. is a Machinery Engineer in the Plant Engineering Division at ExxonMobil Research & Engineering in Fairfax, Virginia. He has worked in the turbomachinery field for 30 years. In his current capacity, he provides support to the downstream, upstream and chemical business lines within ExxonMobil with expertise on
vibrations, rotor/thermo dynamics, failure analysis and health monitoring of rotating equipment. Prior to joining EMRE, he held the position of Manager of Product Engineering and Testing at Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery. There Dr. Kocur directed the development, research, design, engineering and testing of the compressor and steam turbine product lines. He has also held positions with Pratt & Whitney and Amoco Corporation.
Dr. Kocur received his BSME (1978), MSME (1982) and Ph.D. (1991) from the University of Virginia and an MBA (1981) from Tulane University. He has authored papers on rotor instability and bearing dynamics, lectured on hydrostatic bearings, has sat as a committee chairman for NASA Lewis and is a member of ASME. Currently, he holds positions within API as 617 vice-chair, 684 chair and chair of Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment (SOME).
C. Hunter Cloud is President of BRG Machinery Consulting, LLC, in Charlottesville, Virginia, a company providing a diverse range of rotating machinery technical services. He began his career with Mobil Research and Development Corporation in Princeton, NJ, as a turbomachinery specialist responsible for application engineering, commissioning, and troubleshooting for
production, refining and chemical facilities. During his 11 years at Mobil, he worked on numerous projects, including several offshore gas injection platforms in Nigeria as well as serving as reliability manager at a large US refinery.
Dr. Cloud received his B.S. (Mechanical Engineering, 1991) and Ph.D. (Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2007) from the University of Virginia. He is a member of
ASME, the Vibration Institute, the API 684 rotordynamics task force, and the advisory committee for the Texas A&M Turbomachinery Symposium.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the lateral rotordynamic behavior is critical in determining the reliability/operability of rotating equipment. Whether examining a centrifugal pump or compressor, steam or gas turbine, motor or generator, rotating machinery share the same need to accurately predict and measure dynamic behavior. Industrial specifications determining fit for purpose rely on the accuracy of rotordynamic predictions where direct measurement is impractical or otherwise impossible in an industrial setting. Testing to confirm rotordynamic prediction and behavior provides both the purchaser and vendor the confidence that the design will meet project expectations.
Rotordynamic shop testing has several options available to the project during acceptance tests at the vendor’s shop. These options include mechanical run, string and full load/Type 1 testing as well as verification testing to validate unbalance response and stability predictions. Such testing has numerous advantages; the most important being the avoidance of production disruptions involved with testing at the job site. Each test option has associated costs as well as limitations as to what lateral vibration characteristics are revealed. Understanding these factors is vital to efficiently mitigate the risks associated with the purchased equipment.
Applying best practices and an understanding of the industrial (API) test requirements are needed to derive the maximum benefit of each test option. The best practices not only involve the test procedure but also the associated analytical methods used to post process the measurement information. Whether performing a simple mechanical run test or more complex stability verification during ASME Type I testing, ensuring that a logical, repeatable and proven methodology is followed produces reliable evidence to confirm the rotordynamic model and lateral vibration performance. The rationale behind the API test requirements provides an understanding of why that test is being performed and its correct application to the dynamic behavior.
Proceedings of the Forty-Second Turbomachinery Symposium October 1-3, 2013, Houston, Texas
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
Test options can be separated into two categories; tests that reveal portions of the dynamic behavior of the equipment to specific operating conditions and those used to verify the analytical predictions of that behavior. API mechanical, string and Type I (or full load) tests reveal the rotordynamic behavior of the equipment to a given set of conditions. These are used specifically to determine acceptability of the design. Unbalance and stability verification testing is used to confirm (or provide confidence in) the rotordynamic model. Confidence in the model permits extrapolation of the design (vendor) and operation (purchaser) beyond the machine’s as-built and specific shop test conditions.
INTRODUCTION
The first task of an annular seal is the restriction of leakage flowrate between a rotating shaft and a stationary housing. As it turns out, annular gas seals can also have a significant impact on dynamic characteristics of compressors and turbines. Demands on turbomachinery continue to push designs beyond experience limits in terms of speed, power, size, pressure development and flow rate all the while demanding higher reliability and operability. To meet the performance objectives of the application, almost absolute knowledge of the behavior of the machine is necessary. To aide in this understanding, advanced analytical methods have been developed in parallel with the increases in computational power. Whether predicting blade flutter due to impingement flow, reaction of a machinery train to alternating torque or rub potential due to sudden imbalance, current tools sets allow designers to study detailed aspects of machinery behavior like never before.
Shop acceptance testing has long been used as the “final” check of the turbomachinery design and is required for all special purpose equipment. With the advancement of computational methods, failure rates during testing have been greatly reduced. However, experience has taught us analytical methods alone are insufficient to guarantee the “right the first time” philosophy that many reliability systems employ. Whether used to provide data to baseline prototype equipment, to benchmark extensions of current experience limits, or for verification of proven practices, testing remains an integral part of all reliability systems.
Understanding the dynamic behavior is critical in determining the reliability/operability of rotating equipment. Whether designing a pump, compressor, turbine, motor or generator, all rotating machinery share the same need to accurately predict and measure dynamic behavior. Literature is swamped with failures that resulted from both inadequate design and testing methodologies. While the potential for failure originates at the design stage, testing represents the final step to identify that potential. The importance of efficiently employing both cannot be understated [1].
Turbomachinery is dominated by two classes of dynamic behavior; rotordynamics and fluid dynamics. As their names imply, each focuses on a specific dynamic behavior; rotordynamics on the rotating system’s vibration and fluid dynamics on the mechanical interaction with the working fluid. As our depth of understanding increases, the more interrelated these behaviors become. Decisions made in the design of one
can impact the other with sometimes disastrous effects. Nowhere is this more evident than centrifugal equipment, especially compression. For this reason, this tutorial will focus on testing the rotordynamic behavior of centrifugal compressors. However, most of the principles and practices are applicable across all types of turbomachinery.
Rotordynamic behavior testing involves both direct measurement and inference. Direct measurement of the vibration is typically made at the journal locations. Internal vibration levels at other critical locations can only be inferred from these measurements using the rotordynamic predictions. Thus, industrial specifications determining fit for purpose rely on the accuracy of rotordynamic predictions where direct measurement is impractical or otherwise impossible in an industrial setting. Testing to confirm rotordynamic prediction and behavior provides both the purchaser and vendor the confidence that the design will meet project expectations.
Rotordynamic shop testing has several options available to the project during acceptance tests at the vendor’s shop. These options include tests to demonstrate operating behavior at a specific condition (mechanical run, string and full load/Type 1 testing) and verification testing to validate unbalance response and stability predictions. Such testing has numerous advantages; the most important being the avoidance of production disruptions at the job site. Each test option has associated costs as well as limitations as to what lateral vibration characteristics are revealed. Understanding these factors is vital to efficiently mitigate the risks associated with the purchased equipment.
Application of best practices and an understanding of the industrial (API) test requirements are needed to derive the maximum benefit of each test option. The best practice not only involves the test procedure but also the associated analytical methods used to post process the measurement information. Whether performing a simple mechanical run test or more complex stability verification during ASME Type I testing, ensuring that a logical, repeatable and proven methodology is followed produces reliable evidence to confirm the rotordynamic model and lateral vibration performance.
Test options can be separated into two categories; tests that reveal portions of the dynamic behavior of the equipment to specific operating conditions (Vibration Demonstration Tests) and those used to verify the analytical predictions of that behavior (Design Verification Tests). API mechanical run, string and Type I (or full load/full pressure) tests reveal the rotordynamic behavior of the equipment for a given set of conditions. These are used specifically to determine acceptability of the design in a pass/fail mode. Unbalance response and stability verification testing is used to confirm (or provide confidence in) the rotordynamic model and analysis. Confidence in the model permits extrapolation of the design (vendor) and operation (purchaser) beyond the machine’s as-built and specific shop test conditions.
The tutorial will cover the following aspects of rotordynamic testing:
Decision to test: Why and on What Basis?
DEC
Thobjecaccurbeforand wrelate
Thand stestinanalyperfothe tetest dsense
Aestabl[2]. Tthe comatri
Thof thshouldrivin
Rotordyna
o Optiono Objecto Preparo Informo Benefi
Recommen
o Vibrato Design
ISION TO TE
he need for ctives; to provracy of the venre the machinewhich objectived to the applic
Risk-conse
o Impacdeficie
o Outago Experi
Safety, Heproject
Technolog
o Prototo New ao New a
Variability
Rotordyna
hese factors inshould be knowng decisions aysis (which mayrmed until latt
esting may invdecision on the.
Approaching thlishes a logicaThe frameworkorrect mitigatiox is shown in F
he risk matrix he machinery. ld be weighedng the conseq
mic Testing
ns
tives
ration
mation / Knowl
fits
nded Practices
tion Demonstra
n Verification
EST: WHY AN
rotordynamic e the behaviondor’s predicti
e is put into opves to pursue
cation. These f
equence analys
ct on operationsencies
e length due to
ience with sim
ealth and Envir
gy application e
type equipment
application of t
arrangement
y of process con
mic analysis re
nvolve the prown at the beginare made. Dy act to mitigater stages of th
volve verificatihe project’s ris
he project fromal framework uk provides a baon activities toFigure 1.
should be use For rotordy
d with the faquence. (Con
Copyright
ledge Gain
ation Tests
Tests
ND ON WHA
testing stemsr of the machions and to ideperation. The e result from factors are:
sis considering
s given failure
o location
milar services
ronment (SHE
experience (ven
t
the technology
nditions
esults
oject risks andnning of the p
Detailed machiate some of thehe project. Sinon of the analsks and conse
m a risk-consequpon which to asis for efficien
o be performed
d to address spynamics, a poctors driving
nsequence here
t© 2013 by Tu
AT BASIS
s from severahine, to test thentify problemdecision to teseveral factor
the following:
or performanc
E) impact of th
ndor or user)
d consequenceroject when thine design anse risks) are nonce one goal olysis, basing thequences make
quence analysmake decisionncy and enable
d. A typical ris
pecific concernossible outcom
risk and those is defined a
urbomachinery
al he ms st rs
:
ce
he
es he nd ot of he es
is ns es sk
ns me se as
being to con
1 K.E. Atfailure r
Laboratory, T
entirely econonsider are:
Instability (
o Risk: Icriticaldeposit
o Scenarcompo
o Conseqreconfirestrict
High synch
o Risk: factorsinvolve
o Scenarfailure
o Conseqreconfi
Internal rub
o Risk: amplifilaby erosion
o Scenarclearan
o Conseqoperati
Fi
tkins and R. X. Perrate data.
Texas A&M En
omic.) Examp
(high subsynch
Instability drivl speed locatiotion plugging s
rio: Internal onent failure
quence: Downfiguration (extetions
hronous vibrati
Unbalance ses, critical sped, thermal ins
rio: Failure of , internal rubbi
quence: Dfiguration costs
bbing
Sensitivity offication factor,
seal, etc.)n/corrosion asp
rio: Efficiency nces, blade fail
quence: Impaion, downtime
igure 1) Typical
rez [4] discuss qua
ngineering Exp
ples of problem
hronous vibrati
vers (gas denson), operating seal cavities1
rubbing, bea
ntime impact ensive), impac
on levels
ensitivity, highpeed encroacstability
f casing attaching
Downtime fs
f rotor to uncomponent in
), unbalancpects of workin
loss due to exlure
ct of performimpact for rep
Risk Matrix
antification of insta
periment Station
matic outcome
ion)
sity, speed, Pcharacteristics
aring damage
for repair oct of operation
h amplificationchment, mod
hments, bearing
for repairs
nbalance, highnvolved (bladece due tng fluid
xpanded seal/tip
mance loss onpair
ability risk using
n
s
P, s,
e,
or n
n e
g
s,
h e, o
p
n
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
The user must also consider the safety, health and environmental impact of possible failures that can be attributed to the machinery in question. The impacts can result in the release of gas from component failure due to high vibrations, failure to meet regulatory requirements due to unplanned outage or injury due to parts release during failure. The risks of each can be determined through a failure mode analysis [3] that incorporates the rotordynamic contributions to the identified failure modes.
Experience plays an important role in determining the extent of testing to perform. Experience in this case relates to both the vendor and user. Obviously, prototype machinery or equipment that extends the experience limits of the vendor should be tested thoroughly. What may be overlooked is the experience of the user with that equipment. First application of technology within a user company may benefit from additional testing at the vendor’s shop. The testing can be used to better understand the dynamics and what conditions or operating nuances may affect the rotordynamic behavior. Finally, prototype components within the machinery may require additional component testing to determine their impact on the rotordynamic behavior of the machinery.
Finally, the results of the rotordynamics analysis should be used to weigh the decision to test and which test to select. Machines shown sensitive to destabilizing forces or those predicted to have low stability levels may benefit from stability verification tests. Similarly, a rotor with high amplification factors may influence the decision to perform unbalance response verification testing. Verification testing, as noted earlier, is intended to prove the accuracy of the predictive tools used to model the rotor behavior and thus assess the acceptability of the design. The use of a proven rotordynamic analysis is an effective and efficient mitigation strategy towards reducing risk.
ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING
Options
Fundamentally, there are two types of testing options available for lateral rotordynamic assessment. The first type, referred to as vibration demonstration tests, demonstrates the behavior of the as-built machine and/or train for a specific set of operating conditions. Generally, only the site specific instrumentation is used to measure lateral vibration behavior. The tests do not address the accuracy of the model or tools used to predict the rotordynamic behavior, nor do they attempt to estimate or determine the robustness of the design. Those that fall into this category are:
Mechanical Run – an example is the API required mechanical test [5]
String – API 617 refers to this as a complete unit test [6]
Full load/Full pressure – Referred to as a Type I test by ASME [7]
Many important aspects of the rotordynamic behavior cannot be practically measured (i.e. internal vibration levels, separation margin to modes above operating speed) nor can
every possible operating condition or combination of assembly /machining tolerances be tested. To fully understand the acceptability of the design and the rotordynamic behavior, we must rely on the accuracy of the rotordynamic analysis. Consequently, tests to determine the accuracy of those predictions were developed. These additional tests were developed to provide more than a pass/fail test, which is essentially what the vibration demonstration tests are. They were implemented to determine the robustness of the design. This is particularly useful when operating conditions are widely variable or when design experience limits are exceeded. The second type of testing option is referred to as design verification tests with the two most prevalent being:
Unbalance response – This test would include the more invasive testing required by API [8]
Stability – Not currently specified by API standards.
Verification testing also has the options of where these tests can be performed. In either case, the tests may be performed in a high speed balance bunker, during the mechanical test or during the full load testing. Each option adds additional considerations in what can be measured, dynamic effects included in the test and what portion of the dynamic behavior is analyzed.
Test Preparation
Following the decision to perform a rotordynamic test, the user should decide which specifications to apply to the test. The specification should describe the objectives and requirements of the test. For several of the test options described above, API standards have described a specific test procedure to be followed. The API standard details the procedure, objective and requirements for the test. For the more specialized testing, the user will need to develop their own test specification. This can be done with the assistance of the vendor or by consulting industry specialists.
Test Objectives
The objectives of the tests performed should be discussed at the initial stages of the project. Agreement on the test objectives will assist in the determination of what equipment is needed, measurements to be taken, and conditions to be run. Generally speaking, the objectives of each test are listed below. Other specialty objectives can be added, but the ones listed below would form the basis for each test.
Vibration Demonstration Tests
Mechanical Run Test
The mechanical run test as required by API is primarily a vibration level check. Measured at the probes located at the journal location, vibration levels are checked against the specified limit for both overall and non-synchronous components. General mechanical performance is also examined including bearing temperatures, close clearance rubbing and seal performance typically up to maximum continuous speed (MCS). Supercritical behavior is examined by determination of the amplification factor and separation margin of typically the 1st critical speed. (Obviously, the behavior of modes above MCS remains undetermined.)
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
String Test
The string test is not much different than the mechanical test mentioned previously. As the name implies, the string test is performed with all or a major portion of the machinery train connected (typically everything but the driver.) The objectives of this test are also similar to the mechanical test of a single body in that vibration levels are checked against limits, mechanical performance is examined, and supercritical behavior is analyzed. However, in this case, these are determined for the coupled train configuration. The string test is run to measure the coupled body dynamic behavior (when rigid couplings are used in the train) or the coupling spacer dynamics (for couplings with unusually long or heavy spacer tubes.)
Full Load / Full Pressure Test
Full load / full pressure tests are rarely performed based on rotordynamic justifications only, mainly due to the costs involved. However, the Type I test does permit vibration level checks at operating conditions, stall determination, impact of internal loading and deflections on dynamic behavior of individual components (seals and bearings) and a binary check for stability (yes or no). Range testing is rarely done during the Type I test. Typically gas properties are held constant, clearances are left at as-built values and alternate configurations are not considered. Thus, while some aspects of rotordynamic behavior are tested, margins and robustness are left unchecked. The machines undergoing these tests leave those factors to analytical studies whose accuracy may remain unchecked. Keep in mind, to predict the stability (stable vs. unstable) of any machine is the first step in developing a good predictive tool. However, it is not the only step. As designs extend the operating or design experience, it becomes necessary to predict the stability threshold, separation margins and overall optimization of the design correctly, thus the need for verification testing.
Design Verification Tests
Unbalance Response
The likely first attempt to publish a verification test in an industry standard was the unbalance response verification test published by API 617. The objective was simply to verify the unbalance response prediction accuracy of the vendor’s rotordynamic analysis with regards to the machine’s unbalance sensitivity within the operating speed range and the location of the critical speeds (below trip speed.) The verification test analyzes both the predictor tool and model employed. A methodology was refined over several editions of API 617 within the limitations of the mechanical shop test. Alternatively, performing this test in the balance bunker has gained acceptance with the increase in at-speed balancing of rotors and the freedom it permits in terms of weight placement and additional measurement points.
Stability
Several methods have been developed analogous to the API unbalance response verification test with the objective to verify the stability predictions of centrifugal compressors. As with the unbalance response, the intent is to measure more than just
“is the compressor stable” but “how stable is it.” The measurements are then compared against the analytical predictions to determine accuracy. Pettinato et al. [9] presented a methodology employing this test during mechanical and performance testing (as required by API 617).
Test Information / Knowledge Gain
To determine the extent of testing to perform, one needs to understand the information or knowledge gained of the rotordynamic behavior of the body or train. While similar information can be obtained from several of the tests, the costs associated with each determine the overall efficiency of obtaining the necessary information to mitigate risks identified in the risk matrix. As before, the tests are separated into vibration demonstration and verification testing. Vibration demonstration testing confirms the machinery can meet project specifications for a given operating and as-built condition. No attempt is made to confirm the accuracy of the analytical prediction beyond confirmation that the specification has been met. Since the accuracy of the analytical prediction remains largely in question, inferred information from the analytical method should also be questioned.
Vibration Demonstration tests
Mechanical Run
Mechanical testing provides information related to the critical speed location and some indication of that modes behavior. The modal information is limited to only those modes located below the maximum test speed achieved (trip speed in most cases.) Typically, this is only the 1st critical speed. The modal behavior information is restricted to the amplification factor which is sketchy at best. The amplification factor can be highly sensitive to the acceleration/deceleration rate and whose magnitude is not restricted by API. The test also validates the balance procedure’s effectiveness in meeting the project vibration limit specification.
For certain low risk applications, this amount of information is sufficient. What isn’t tested however can be significant. For example, subcritical motor applications (incorrectly termed stiff shaft) operate below the 1st critical. This critical speed can have high amplification factors and can be damaging if the separation margin is lost. Performing only a mechanical test will tell the user whether the mode is on or below the operating speed. The amount of separation remains untested and can only be inferred from the unverified analytical predictions. Thus, the impact of support stiffness loss on the location of the mode in the field (due to structural or bearing clearance changes) can have significant risk associated with it.
String Test
String testing will provide the same type of rotordynamic information as obtained with the mechanical testing but at the higher costs of assembling the entire (or high speed portion) of the train. Information again limited to the critical speed location and some indication of the modal behavior. Ignoring other reasons to perform string testing (e.g. fit checks for trains being sent to remote portions of the globe), rotordynamic justification for the test should be limited to the information supplied by the test, namely, dynamic behavior of the coupling
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
spacer(s) and rigid coupling effects on the dynamic behavior of individual bodies. As noted in API 684 [10], a train lateral analysis should be requested for unusually long or heavy coupling spacers or when rigid couplings are used. In this case, the correct boundary conditions at the shaft ends are obtained when the train is modeled (train in this case refers to the bodies on either side of the coupling(s) in question.)
Testing of this train configuration should mimic the analytical model to verify the behavior in question. With a rigid coupling, the rotordynamic behavior of the bodies rigidly coupled will be affected. For unusually long or heavy coupling spacers, the dynamics of the spacer can only be accurately modeled/tested with the hubs attached to the shafts.
Full Load / Full Pressure (FLFP) Test
Type I tests provide a stable vs. unstable behavior indication of the rotor to specific test conditions. The test also reveals the change in lateral behavior of the measured modes (typically the 1st critical speed as with the mechanical test) due to internal loading of the compressor and application of gas pressures and densities close to the design values at the seals. The latter introduces seal dynamics into the testing that is only achieved during the FLFP test. This is important for both stability and synchronous behavior especially for machines incorporating hole pattern or honeycomb seals. The presence of subsynchronous vibration due to phenomena such as stall, surge or whirl may also be revealed during the FLFP test.
Design Verification Tests
Unbalance Response
The unbalance response verification test (URVT) provides a measurement of how well the analytical predictions match the vibration produced from a known unbalance. This in turn adds confidence to the internal deflection, separation margin and unbalance sensitivity calculations made from that analysis. On the shop floor, the unbalance weight addition is typically limited to the coupling. Some turbines and overhung machines have the ability to add internal weights or weights to the overhung impeller. Optionally, the test can be performed in the vendor’s balance bunker. The bunker permits more freedom in terms of weight placement and measurement of shaft deflection at points other than the job’s proximity probe location (mid-span, for example.) Of course, the analytical model needs to reflect the setup in the bunker; bunker bearings if used and support stiffness of the bunker pedestals. Since the intent is verify the accuracy of the analytical predictions, these differences in configuration should not affect reaching that conclusion.
Stability
The stability verification (SVT) test provides confidence in the analytical predictions regarding the stability level and position relative to the stability threshold. As with the unbalance response verification, options are available regarding the platform or test configuration to perform this test. The results of each platform can be summarized below regarding the accuracy of the analytic method to predict:
Balance bunker – Rotor, bearings, and pedestal support impact on stability (bunker bearings if used) at various speeds.
Mechanical test (Vacuum) – Rotor, job bearings and casing support impact on “baseline” stability (or basic log decrement reflecting the bearings and rotor only) at various speeds.
Performance test – Rotor, job bearings, casing support and reduced aerodynamic and seal behavior impact on stability for a limited speed range.
Type I test – Stability level and margin at nearly the same operating conditions as expected in the field. The range of gas conditions, inlet and discharge pressures and flow rates may be limited as a result of the test setup.
Test Benefits
The benefits derived from the rotordynamic testing can be identified for the two groups of testing. Vibration demonstration testing provides the purchaser the following:
Demonstration that vibration levels and critical speed separation margins (for those under the maximum test speed) specifications have been met – All tests
A stable vs. unstable check is made for a specific test condition – Type I test
Proof of effectiveness of the balance procedure in meeting vibration level specifications – All Tests
Non-synchronous vibration levels examined – Type I test, to some degree all tests
Design verification extends those benefits to:
Determining accuracy of unbalance response calculation with regards to the unbalance sensitivity – Unbalance verification (shop floor)
Determining predictive accuracy for mid-span unbalances and deflections – Unbalance verification (at-speed balance bunker)
Reassurance that mid-span deflections are within operating clearances for close clearance locations – Unbalance verification (higher for at-speed balance bunker)
Verification of stability level prediction for system with no excitations (baseline stability) – Stability verification (at-speed balance bunker and during the mechanical run test)
Reassurance that rotordynamic model of shaft and bearings is accurate – URVT and SVT
Robustness and optimization of machinery design – URVT and SVT
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
Correctness of the stability model of impellers, annular seals and other destabilizing mechanisms as well as the effectiveness of any components which are intended to reduce the destabilizing effects (shunt bypass, swirl brakes, damper seals) – Stability verification (PTC Type I and Type II testing)
The at-speed balance bunker can extend the benefits of the URVT by permitting weight placement at and measurement of locations that are more sensitive to unbalance and the negative 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 vendor’s 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.
Vibration demonstration tests can reveal the presence of instabilities. However, even if no problematic nonsynchronous vibrations are observed, the machine’s actual stability could be very small (say less than the API design minimum requirement of log decrement of 0.1) and close to the stability threshold. This state of blindness with respect to the machine’s actual stability, as well as the significant uncertainties remaining in current modeling tools for stability prediction [11], can only be mitigated by directly measuring the machine’s log decrement through a SVT.
Unlike the URVT, a SVT requires additional hardware in the form on a temporarily, mounted shaker. While this is an added complication, a SVT is often a cost and technically effective alternative to the very expensive Type I test. Such Type 1 testing is unlikely to receive project approval unless it is specified very early on during FEED. SVT can provide a valuable stability assessment of the machine during the other operations/tests that are often typically specified, namely, at-speed balancing, MRT or PTC 10 Type II performance tests.
When done in conjunction with high speed balance or the
MRT, an SVT can measure the machine’s basic log decrement. Figure 2 shows the results of such testing versus speed for a particular test rig mounted on tilting pad journal bearings [12]. Measurement of the basic log decrement provides evidence as to whether or not the machine’s rotor/bearing/support system has the robustness to counteract the destabilizing mechanisms that it will experience in the field. As shown in Figure 2, such basic log decrement testing also provides the opportunity to assess competing tilting pad journal bearing models, a topic of much debate in the industry [11, 12].
Figure 2) Base stability measurements versus speed
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES OF ROTORDYNAMIC TESTING
This section will focus on the rotordynamic testing of centrifugal compressors due to the complex dynamic behavior of this class of turbomachinery. Concepts developed in this section can be applied to all types of machinery as they all share certain aspects of rotating behavior. In addition, this section will focus on rotordynamics only. The tests listed below, especially the non-verification testing, are also used to prove other aspects of the machine’s acceptability. These aspects will not be discussed.
Vibration Demonstration Tests
Mechanical Run Test
Mechanical run test of the rotating equipment should be viewed as a minimal test to determine the rotordynamic acceptability and should be considered for equipment that is designed-for-purpose in contrast to equipment selected from a catalog.
Test P
Foprocefactorare:
Test S
Oshoulincremexclufrequspecifrun afollow
Throtor creatirub dthe rocan brotor/to enaccepthe thvibratStabletest. (increlevelsFolloperfosynchwill aperfo
OimporincreainterfThis mtrip sconvepotenidenticontinstand
Aaddedagaintransichangmay
Procedure
or most types oedures to followrs related to th
Test speed
Lube oil viscosity)
Rotor/supp
Speeds/Duratio
Operation of thld include a wmented in 1
usions zones uencies. Followfied for 15 miat maximum cws the 4 hour r
he warm up poare given tim
ing unintendeddamage. The wotor behavior be detected at/stator damagensure that vibptable at this sphermal conditiotion levels aree levels of eac If any param
ease or decreass are achievewing the 4 hrmed. The coa
hronous behavalso be used rmed.
Operation at trirtant for seveases centrifugference fits andmay alter the bspeed is neceenient to reachntial problemsify any criticanuous speed th
d.
Additional shutd at the beginnst the coastdient behavior ges to the balanprove useful
of equipment, Aw during a mehe rotordynam
ds/duration
parameters (
port configurati
on
he compressorwarm up porti10 minute in
of critical wing the warminutes followedcontinuous sperun.
ortion is includme to thermalld interferenceswarm up portio
at increasing t less energetie and project dbration levels peed. The 4 hons of the systee important facch parameter nmeter shows sse), the test sh
ed. If not, thour run, a coastdown is use
vior of the rotoas the baselin
ip speed durineral reasons. gal forces on d permit the rbalance state o
essary for triph these speeds . Finally, trial speeds occhat would othe
tdown/startup nning of the 4down followin
of the rotor nce state of thein diagnosing
Copyright
API standards echanical test.
mic behavior of
(temperature,
ion
r during the mion where thentervals carespeeds and
m up, operationd by a non-inteed. A coastd
ded to ensure thly expand grads between the on also permitsspeed intervalc stages poten
delays. Trip sp(and overall
hour run portioem. Bearing tectors to watch need to be reacsigns of continhould be extenthe test shouloastdown fromd to determineor/support systne for verifica
ng the mechanFirst, runningthe rotor wh
otor’s static shof the rotor. Sp testing in th
during testingip speed oper
curring just aberwise not be s
transient ope hour test. W
ng the 4 houcan be exam
e rotor can be ig Morton’s Ef
t© 2013 by Tu
include specifi Important te
f the equipmen
flow rate an
mechanical te rotor speed
efully avoidinblade natura
n at trip speed errupted 4 houdown from tri
hat the case andually to avoitwo leading t
examination os. Thus, faultntially avoidinpeed is include
operation) aron is used to seemperatures anduring the tes
ched during thnual movemen
nded until stablld be rejected
m trip speed e the overall antem. This datation testing,
nical run test ig to trip speehich may relahape to changeecond, reachinhe field. It g to identify anration can helbove maximumseen on the te
eration can bWhen compareur test, thermamined and anidentified. Thffect, clearanc
urbomachinery
fic st nt
nd
st is
ng al is ur ip
nd id to of ts
ng ed re et
nd st. he nt le d. is
nd ta if
is ed ax e.
ng is
ny lp m st
be ed al
ny is ce
closurat tripshown
F
Lube O
Luapplicviscosthe vehour rminimvibratilimits
Rotor/
ThconditoverhumechaSmalleaccomcloselymay rmatchvendomomepredicheavie
Noused trecomincreabehavverific
Test R
Fofor thsynchridentiftrip sp
Laboratory, T
re of the radialp speed. Speedn on Figure 3.
Figure 3) Speed v
Oil Parameters
ube oil parametcation. Bearisity should be wendor for field run, lube oil
mum to maximuion levels andshould be held
/Support Confi
he rotor configtion as possiblung weight anical testing er shop driver
mmodate, the lay mimic the ov
require that a sh the overhungor’s smaller caent is larger ctions should ber overhung we
ote: For the to study the im
mmended that ased reliance vior that may cation of the ro
Requirements
ocusing on thehe mechanicaronous vibratfied critical sppeed, rubbing
Texas A&M En
l bearings or fid versus time fo
vs. Time for a TyCentrifugal Co
s
ters should miming flow, lubewithin the speoperation. Ainlet temperatum specified r
d bearing operad until steady s
figuration
guration shouldle. The majorassociated wis done at
rs need not haarger couplingverhung weighsimulator be adg moment. Tasings where t
than the jobbe used to detereights on the 2
cases where rmpact of configu
verification ton the rotor
not be fully totordynamic pr
e rotordynamical test involtion levels, peeds, % chang
at close clea
ngineering Exp
ix relaxation dfor a typical me
ypical Mechanicompressor
mic that used fe oil inlet tecified operatinfter stabilizatioture can be vrange to examination. Operatistate conditions
d be as close tr concern cent
with the couppartial rated
ave, nor in soms of the job. I
ht of the job ½ dded to the drihe opposite mthe test couplib coupling. rmine the impa
2nd and 3rd critic
rotordynamic uration changetesting be perrdynamic modtested necessitrediction be un
c behavior, thlve the overthe separationge of vibrationarance location
periment Station
due to operationechanical test i
cal Test of a
for the intendeemperature anng ranges set byon during the 4
varied from thne the effect onon at the rangs are achieved.
to the operatingters around thpling. Often
power levelsme cases coulIt is essential tocoupling. Thi
ive assembly tomay be true foing’s overhung
Rotordynamiact of using thcal speeds.
predictions ares, it is stronglyrformed. Thdel to predictates that somndertaken.
he requirementrall and nonn margins on from MCS tons and bearing
n
n s
d d y 4 e n e
g e n s. d o is o
or g c e
e y e
ct e
ts n-of o g
behavthese as:
Aamplivibratfactorvibratthermthe M
Test D
Th
SeanalyDiscudetermadditicollecmay afield may shop
Acriticarespocalcupoweassocexam
would13.7%also b, at ∗ ∆∆Th
takena rangmaximexamsynch
vior in terms olimits. Overa
Additional reqification factotion. API 684rs, separation mtions beyond
mal related tranMorton Effect p
Deliverables
he deliverables
Electronic bearing tem
Overall vib
Bode plot speed
Vibration during the
Statement
everal of the dysis software/ussions with thmine what the ional equipmection system, ralso prove usetroubleshootinbe desired thatesting.
A bode plot is shal speed is ea
onse of 0.72 mulated by multer point – reciated with tha
mple, the ampli
d require a s% of minimumbe calculated fthe peak respo
∆∆ ∗he peak vibrati
n in the operatinge of 7000 to 1mum overall v
mple, the ovehronous vibrati
f temperature. ll vibration lim
quirements mor of critical 4 [14] providesmargin requirespeed. Addit
nsient maximumphenomenon is
s of a typical m
recording of mperatures)
bration vs. time
- synchronous
vs. frequency4 hour run)
of acceptability
deliverables re/hardware behe vendor shoucapabilities of
ent is needed. representing thful for follow-ng. In both at was not exa
hown on Figurasily identified
mils 0-pk. Thiplying the pe
ed dashed linat magnitude (gification factor
separation mam speed [15]. from the slope onse, Nc. Thi. 6.4
ion with regardng speed range10000 rpm, ourvibration levelrall vibration ion.)
Copyright
API is frequemit per API 617
12000,
ay include speeds and
s information oements and factional requiremm behavior malikely.
mechanical test
vibration and
e & speed (tabu
s vibration (ma
y (at each spe
y
quire vibratione present duld be held prif the test facilit
Native fileshe baseline ma-up diagnostic cases, additionamined or plo
re 4. For the Xd at 5197 rpme amplificationeak response bne) and locatigreen dashed lr isargin of 17 ∗The amplificaof the phase a
is takes the for
ds to the API ve from minimur example casel of 0.5 mils p
is assumed
t© 2013 by Tu
ently used to se7 [13] is define
, 1.0
limits on thtime-dependen
on amplificatiotors influencin
ments as to thay be imposed
are:
static data (i.e
ular or plot)
ag & phase) v
eed and point
n recording anduring testingior to testing tty are and if ans from the datachine behaviowork or to aidnal informatio
otted during th
X probe, the firm with a pean factor can bby 0.7071 (haing the speedlines). For th
6.7. Th1 . .
ation factor maangle in radianrm:
vibration limit ium to MCS. Foe would report pk-pk. (For th
to equal th
urbomachinery
et ed
he nt on ng he if
e.
s.
ts
nd g. to ny ta
or, de on he
st ak be alf ds is is
ay s,
is or a is
he
Rotord
Thavailanot beregard
Figure
Laboratory, T
Figur
dynamics Mod
he rotordynamable prior to the tested, the reds to the analys
Does the ro617 [16], residual (2 above the meet the vquality of th
Are there sthe 2nd and predict thespeed, userthe analysSynchronoucarefully exencroachmepotential mmagnitude
e 5) Impact on S
Texas A&M En
re 4) Bode Plot o
deling
mic predictionhe test. Since esults are reviesis and test req
otor meet sensian unbalance* 4W/N) shovibration limivibration limithe balance cor
separation mar3rd critical spe
e location of mrs should verifysis matches us vibration axamined for aent. Figure
mode just abovand phase (circ
Synchronous VibAbove Operati
ngineering Exp
of Inboard Probe
ns for the rothe model anaewed for prob
quirements. Of
itivity requireme application uld not producit. Sensitive rts on test regrrection.
rgin problems eeds? To propmodes above y that the overh
that used at higher spe
an indication o5 shows the
ve 12,000 rpmcled on plot).
bration of Criticang Range
periment Station
e
otor should balysis itself wilblem areas withf concern:
ments? Per APof twice th
ce probe levelrotors may nogardless of th
especially withperly model an
the 1st criticahung weight fofor the testeds should b
of critical speede impact of m on vibration
al Speed Located
n
e ll h
PI e ls ot e
h d al or t. e d a n
d
Test K
Tha pasvibratconcemeet close inspepresebe anmech
Thmechwith relateAdditincorp7th Ed
Banalyrotor sensitcheck
Strin
Waccur
1
2
Test P
A
Knowledge/Ver
he knowledge ss/fail determintion levels aerning the 1st crequired levelclearance lo
ction) is used nce of non-syn indicator of
hanical loosene
he rotordynamhanical test. In the quality of
ed to the qutional checks oporating other dition:
Limit the dcritical spe
o 1st criidentif
o Providstiffnespeed
Limit the damplificati
o Amplidampi
o The Adue tonot ful
eyond what is ysis is relied up
(marginally tivity to unbked).
ng Test
With regards torately determin
1. A rigid coudynamics together. configuraticoupled.
2. There existrain – In thconcern. coupling hin the train
Procedure
A procedure si
rification
gained from thnation of the and separatiocritical speed) als. In additionocations (deteas a pass/fail
ynchronous vibf other mechass).
mic predictionsfact, the shaft
f the rotordynauality of theof the predictitest requireme
discrepancy beeed location
itical speed is fied.
des a check of ess (stiffness islocation).
discrepancy beion factor (AF)
ification factoring present.
AF can vary ao runout and relly taken into a
measured durpon to predict verified by t
balance (not
o rotordynamicne behavior for
upling is used are affected The rotor
ion should be
sts a long or hhis case, the dyTo model the
hubs, the coupln.
imilar to that
Copyright
he mechanical rotordynamic
on margins (are checked ton, the presencermined durinperformance o
bration compoanical faults (
s are not trulyvibration norm
amic behavior e rotor balanion accuracy cents not requir
etween predicte
likely the on
the shaft bends the primary f
etween predicte)
r is an indicato
across measureesidual excitatiaccount in the p
ring the test, ththe internal dethe inspectionchecked) and
cs, a string tethe following
in the train – Iby rigidly
rdynamic moperformed w
heavy couplinynamics of thee boundary coling should be
of the Mech
t© 2013 by Tu
test is basicallbehavior. Th
(typically onlo show that thece of rubbing ang the postteof the test. Thnents may als
(i.e., instability
y verified in mally associateis more closel
nce performedcan be made bred by API 61
ed vs. measure
nly mode to b
ding and suppofactor in critica
ed vs. measure
or of the moda
ement locationions in the shapredictions.
he rotordynamieflections of thn for rubbingd stability (no
est is needed tconfigurations
Individual bodcoupling them
odel and teith both bodie
g spacer in the coupling are oonditions at th
tested installe
hanical Test a
urbomachinery
ly he ly ey at st
he so y,
a ed ly d. by 17
ed
be
rt al
ed
al
ns aft
ic he g), ot
to s:
dy m st es
he of he ed
as
descrifour tetest cmechaare notube vmome
Test R
Foto the additionaturameasuresponcoupli
Test D
No
Rotord
In prediceither coupleSimilacoupleseparaby thespringrigidly
Figure
Test K
Mowith tdesign
Full L
Dupressucentrif
Laboratory, T
ibed above is est should be can be used anically run tesot altered whenversus using
ent.)
Requirements
or configuratioMechanical T
onal requiremeal frequency surements madnses at both ofing natural freq
Deliverables
o difference fro
dynamic Mode
either case, thctions should
side. For exaed to a generarly, a power ed with a lonate rotors (PT,e flexible elemg elements. Fy coupled steam
e 6) Rotordynam
Knowledge/Ver
ore knowledgethe string test.n verification c
Load / Full Pre
ue to the relaure (FLFP) tfugal compress
Loss of proimpact
High pressu
Limited vapplication
Rotordynamconcerns w
Texas A&M En
sufficient. Frun. For conif the indiv
sted. (Unlike #n tested couple
a moment si
on #1, the requTest described ents concerninshould be inclde at either ef these locationquency interfer
om the Mechan
eling
he rotordynamicinclude the coample, a train rator, should
turbine drivinng spacer shou, spacer and c
ments modeledFigure 6 presm turbine / gen
mic Model for a S
rification
e of the coupl However, th
can be made as
essure
ative cost of ptest, this optisors meeting a
oduction produ
ure application
vendor experi
mic analysis with the rotor st
ngineering Exp
or configuratiofiguration #2,
vidual bodies #1, individual d with a long oimulator of e
uirements shouabove. For cog the location uded incorpor
end of the cons could be an rence.
nical Test.
c model used foupling and tcomprising a be modeled ng a reinjectiuld all be mocompressor) cod as shaft elements the rotornerator train.
Steam Turbine /
ed train behavhe same statems with the Mech
performing a fion is typicall of the follow
uces an unaccep
ns
ience with t
reveals incretability
periment Station
on #1, the fulan abbreviatedwere already
body dynamicor heavy spaceequal overhung
uld be identicaonfiguration #2of the coupling
rating vibrationoupling. Peak
indication of
for the behaviotrain bodies on
turbine rigidlyin its entiretyion compressoodeled as threoupled togethements or laterardynamic for
Generator Train
vior is obtainedments regardinghanical Test.
full load / fulally limited twing criteria:
ptable financia
the design o
eased risks o
n
ll d y s
er g
al 2, g n k a
or n y y. or e
er al a
n
d g
ll o
al
or
or
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
Test Procedure
For the FLFP test, the procedure should be developed in concert with the rotordynamic analysis. The FLFP test is intended to study the stability of the centrifugal pressure under similar conditions to the field. By applying load and pressure, destabilizing forces of the seals and impeller/shroud interactions are introduced including seal clearance changes due to internal deflections as a result of reaching full pressure. Operating points during the FLFP test should be determined, in part, by the rotordynamic analysis and reflect operating points of minimum stability. These could represent operation at MCS near surge (highest differential pressure) or, in some cases, partial speed towards stonewall. Since this test as normally carried out is a “pass/fail” (e.g. the rotor is stable or not), test conditions should match as close as possible to the field conditions. The parameters of importance include gas MW, power, suction and discharge pressure and temperature, speed and mass flow. If the exact gas composition cannot be tested, some of these parameters will have to be compromised. The rotordynamic model should be used to determine an appropriate combination of factors to produce the maximum instability drivers or minimum log decrement. Miranda and de Noronha [17] propose modifications to the FLFP ASME Type I test to better assess the stability of centrifugal compression equipment. The modifications were intended to create conditions to submit the rotor to instability mechanisms as near as possible to the design conditions rather than reproduce similarity for performance evaluation. The conditions were developed with the aid of the rotordynamic stability predictions.
As with the Mechanical Test, the FLFP test should consist of a warm up portion where the speed is increased gradually to permit stabilization and examination of the behavior at lower speeds. This is followed by an extended run at MCS to ensure thermal equilibrium of the entire machine is achieved. During this test phase, it is recommended that the operating curve at MCS is explored from the surge control line to the end of curve (stonewall.) This operation may include four to five operating points and may include other speeds as highlighted by the rotordynamic analysis. (Note: Other factors may dictate operation at other points as required, i.e. defining the surge line vs. speed, rated point defined at partial speed.)
Factors such as lube oil conditions and rotor assembly are expected to meet the field configuration and specified operating ranges. When practical, the lube oil operating range should be explored during the FLFP test. Lube oil inlet conditions impact the dynamic behavior of bearings. As a critical factor in determining the rotordynamic behavior, it is important to vary these factors over the allowable ranges during testing.
Test Requirements
Test requirements for the FLFP test are defined by agreement between the vendor and purchaser prior to the test and should be done at the contract stage. Holding the overall vibration limit to the level specified for the mechanical run test is impractical due to the additional rotor forces present during 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
recommended trip setting does not leave margin for off-design operation in the field nor deterioration of the balance state from erosion or deposits. An agreed level should take into account both factors and fall somewhere in between.
Other requirements for the rotor and case vibration may include:
Components of non-synchronous vibration to be less than 20% of the vibration limit or 0.2 mils p-p, whichever is less
No stall related vibration components
No instability related vibration (associated with re-excitation of the 1st natural frequency)
Maximum housing vibration less than 0.1 in/sec
Limitations regarding thermal instability (Morton Effect) vibrations
Test Deliverables
Deliverables are similar to the mechanical run test and should include data for all purchased components tested (as with the string test.) Increased emphasis is placed on the FFT plots of shaft vibration during the test as this is the best indicator of instability, stall, whirl and other phenomena that produce non-synchronous vibrations. Performance data should be recorded during the test to confirm the input used to predict the seal and impeller dynamic behavior and aide further stability analysis if needed.
Rotordynamic Modeling
When FLFP testing is selected, the rotordynamic model should be expanded as necessary to conform to the Level II stability analysis requirements of API 617 [18]. Given the cost, effort and reasons to perform FLFP testing, a Level I stability analysis is insufficient to predict the behavior accurately. The Level II model will reflect changes in the stability level to MW, gas pressures and temperatures, seal clearances and rotor speed to the best of the vendor’s or purchaser’s analytic capabilities. The Level I model uses an empirical relationship that either estimates these effects or doesn’t take them into account at all when calculating the destabilizing forces present in the machine.
Test Knowledge / Verification
The FLFP test will reveal the presence of instability, stall or whirl for a prescribed set of operating conditions for the specific machine’s as-built conditions. The test is pass/fail as no measurement of the stability level or margin is included in the test as described. Rotor stability at different gas compositions, other clearances within the tolerance range or other operating points is determined by rotordynamic predictions. The ability to operate successfully at these alternate points, which cannot be tested under all combinations, depends on the stability margin (not measured by FLFP test) of the machine.
Copyright© 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station
Design Verification Testing
Such verification testing should be considered for the following types of equipment:
Special purpose (as defined by API)
Loss of production produces an unacceptable financial impact
Services or applications with a history of bad actors (vibration related)
Critical service (as defined by the user)
In addition, verification testing of either the unbalance response or stability should be considered when the rotordynamic analysis demonstrates concerns or higher risks associated with the application. The verification testing can be used to mitigate those risks when applied correctly.
Unbalance Response Verification Test (URVT)
Test Procedure
The URVT test is basically a comparison of measured versus predicted vibration levels for the application of a known unbalance. The test is routinely performed following the four hour mechanical run test. For compressors, the verification weight is applied to the coupling flange. This is the only practical location available. For other machinery (e.g., steam turbines, overhung single stage compressors), other locations may be available. Steam turbines may have field accessible balance planes and overhung compressors an impeller checknut with a balance weight placement provision. The measured response of the machine with the verification weight is compared against the analytical prediction using the same weight and location. While this is not a complete check of the analytic unbalance response accuracy, as it only compares the model’s prediction at the probe locations for one weight placement, it is an important first step in ensuring the accuracy of the model.
It was recognized early on that an important aspect of the URVT test was to compensate for the residual unbalance in the machine. This residual unbalance creates the synchronous vibration witnessed during the mechanical test run and is present before and after the verification weight is applied to the rotor. The residual unbalance left in a rotor after balancing (either low or at-speed balancing) is uncharacterized and, therefore, cannot be modeled. Thus, the analytical model will have only the verification weight as an excitation source for the response.
The initial attempt by API 617 6th Edition to compensate for the residual unbalance was to apply a significant verification weight to the coupling to raise the response to the vibration limit. The implication was that the majority of the response would be due to the verification weight placement. This had two important drawbacks (besides being analytically incorrect): First, the amount of unbalance weight at the coupling needed to raise the response to the vibration limit could reach unsafe levels. Coupling flanges are not designed with the intent of adding unbalance weight. Large rotating forces applied to the coupling had a chance of failing the flange or, more probably,
failing the mechanism used to hold the weight in place. Second, the method relied on larger vibration limits
This i
Figure
Arequirtempe
Opera
Aspeedspeedthe terotor balanweighand abunkepredicfor m
Thperfosuppomachidentiand palter stiffnmachadequsoftwinaccbetweerronusingthe saoption
demonstratonly to the
is shown on Fi
e 7) Determinati
All other aspecrements of theeratures, speed
ating Speed Ba
An option existsd balance bund balance bunkest floor. The that running in
nce bunker perht (i.e. mid-spadditional shafter permits adctions, i.e. mid
mid-span and qu
here is one rming the URort stiffness in hine. Often thical to the job
pad arc length the stiffness
ness of the pedhine. Bunker puate velocity m
ware. The sturate represeneen prediction
neous conclusiog bunker beariname inaccuracyn for URVT.
tes that the re verification w
igure 7.
ion of Rotor Res
cts of the URe mechanical
ds and rotor sup
alance Bunker
s of where to pkers (also refkers) can be uadvantages aren the bunker prmits alternate pan, quarter-spt vibration readdditional verifd-span responsuarter-span wei
important coRVT test in th
the bunker wihe bunker beab bearings. Dand the existenand damping
destals will aledestals are int
measurements utiffness is a
ntation will prs and measureon that the modngs and pedesty. Table 1 pr
Copyright
esultant respoweight added to
sponse due to Ve
RVT should crun test in terpport.
Option
perform the URferred to as atused and has ae associated wipresents. The
locations for pan), use of mdings. The accfication of these relative to joight placement
omplexity whhe balance buill be differentarings, while sifferent clearance of a levitatg coefficients. lso be differentended to be flused in most b
function of roduce significements. This del of the job ctal stiffness) alesents the adv
t© 2013 by Tu
onse, , is duo the rotor.
erification Weigh
conform to thrms of oil inle
RVT. Operatint-speed or higadvantages oveith access to thoperating speethe verificatio
multiple weightcessibility of the rotordynamiournal locationts.
en considerinunker; the rotot than the actuasimilar, are no
ances, L/D ratition pocket wi
The suppont than the jolexible to permunkers’ balancfrequency an
cant differencecan lead to thcompressor (nolso suffers from
vantages of eac
urbomachinery
ue
ht
he et
ng gh er he ed on ts
he ic ns
ng or al ot io ill rt
ob mit ce nd es he ot m ch
Shop
+ Test
1.
Decriticacan be
Test D
Th
Laboratory, T
Floor (MechanTest)
t performed wiconfiguratio
Table 1) Comp
. As requiredclose clearshould be testing – Fshow the roa factor of lateral analsensitivity afor complia
epending on al speed shapee performed.
Deliverables
he deliverables
Rotordynamweight plalocations ucarried out oil inlet temin radial beshould idenpeaks) and variation iverification
Measured plotted for t
Coastdownfour proximbaseline dathe residual
Coastdownweight andrepresents verification
Vector suverificationmeasured re
Comparison(typically th– DiscrepaAPI 617) smodel (i.e.
Texas A&M En
URVT Veanical Run
ith the job on
paring Advantag
d by API 617 7rance location
adjusted as For example, otordynamic anf two, all respolysis should thand close clearance.
the vehicle, e, amplification
s for the URVT
mic analyticaacement and mused in the test over the specmperature to pearing dynamintify the criticagreed upon u
in bearing dyn weight.
synchronous the following c
n following themity probe locata for the macl unbalance an
n following pld warmup atthe vibration
n weight.
ubtraction of n + residual daesponse to the
n of the meathe 1st critical ancies outside should be addr., addressing
ngineering Exp
ehicle Operating Sp
Bun+ Increased f
weight pl+ Additional m
points p+ Additional vthe rotordyna
ges of Each Test
7th Edition, prens and unbaladictated by tshould the v
nalysis is undeonse levels calhen by multiplirance requirem
additional chen factor and m
T should includ
al response fmagnitude andst. The respocified range ofproduce the laric coefficients.cal speed locaunbalance respynamic coeffi
vibration daconditions:
e 4 hour test cations – Thischine (vibrationd forces in the
lacement of tt MCS (if nen data for th
baseline daata – This willverification w
asured peak rspeed) to the pthe permitted
ressed by correthe values us
periment Station
peed Balance nker flexibility for lacement measurement
possible verification of amic analysis t Vehicle
edictions for thance sensitivitythe verificationverification teser predicting bylculated for thied by two and
ments rechecke
ecks regardingmodal respons
de:
for the setupd measuremenonse should bf clearance andrgest variation. The analysiation (responsonse versus thicients for th
ata should b
plotted for ths represents thn as a result orotor.)
the verificationeeded) – Thihe residual +
ata from thl be the rotor’
weight.
response speepredicted rangrange (5% fo
ecting the rotoed for suppor
n
e y n st y e d d
g e
p, nt e d
ns is e e e
e
e e
of
n is +
e s
d e
or or rt
Twprocean 8 for a(40W
Figur
Thverifidrive-(identand thfloor verifi
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
1X A
mpl
itude
(mils
p-p
)stiffness, stiffness).
Comparisoversus the predicted vthe correctof measurand sensiticompliance
Other anspecified in
wo examples edure. Both arstage compres
a verification W/N magnitude)
re 8) Response P
he correspondication weight -end probe wtical to that usehe drive-end w
during the ication test.
Figure 9) Measur
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 2000
Min
Max
bearing stiff
on of the mepredicted valu
value is less thted analytical ped/predicted iivity requireme.
alytical vs. n the test proce
of the URVT re taken from rssor. Figure 8
weight place) of the compre
Plot of Coupling Max Bearing
ding probe readded runs a
was selected sed in the analywould have themechanical t
red Probe SynchCompre
4000 6000 80
Rotor Sp
Stiff
Stiff
Copyright
fness and/or
easured respoue at the requirhan the measupredictions bass supplied. C
ments should b
measured reedure.
are provided ref. [19]. The 8 plots the preed at the couessor for one d
Verification WeStiffness
sponse for thare plotted onsince the verisis) was addede largest respotest run was
hronous Responsssor
000 10000 1200
peed (rpm)
t© 2013 by Tu
shaft bendin
onse magnitudred speed(s) – ured value, thesed on the factoClose clearancbe reviewed fo
equirements a
to illustrate thfirst example i
edicted responsupling locatio
drive end probe
eight for Min and
he baseline ann Figure 9). Afication weigh
d to the couplinonse. The sho
used for th
se for 8 Stage
00 14000 16000
urbomachinery
ng
de If
en or ce or
as
he is se on e.
d
nd A ht ng op he
Noweighis duPerforthe recompa
Figure
Figresiduto coumeasufrom trequircriticaFigurewas ne
ThbaselinsecondverificMCS 1st critanalysrespon8W/Nrub limcompl
Fi
Laboratory, T
otice that meaht does not resue to the resrming the vectesponse due sared against th
e 10) 8 Stage Co
gure 10 illustual unbalance dupling unbalancured response fthe rotordynam
rement was enal speed) falls e 8. For this exeeded.
he measured ne and verificd example, tcation weight by 25%, Figutical speed dosis, Figure 11. nse magnitude
N unbalance shmits and sensitliance.
igure 11) Measu
Texas A&M En
asured probe reemble the predsidual unbalantor subtraction solely to the vhe predicted res
ompressor – MeaRespon
trates the needue to the relace. Even at lofalls within thmic response e
nforced. In adwithin the ranxample, no cor
response of cation run is the measured is shown to e
ure 12. The moes occur withi
For this case, es at the closeould be increativity requirem
ured Probe Respo
ngineering Exp
esponse with tdicted responsnce response of the two da
verification wsponse on Fig 1
asured vs. Predicnse
ed to removeative insensitivw amplitudes, e maximum leespecially at Mdition, the pea
nge predicted brrection of the
a three stageshown on Fig
response to exceed the pre
measured peak rin the range pthe lateral ana
e clearance locased by a factoments should be
onse for 3 Stage
periment Station
the verificatione, Fig. 8. Thi
in the rotorata files isolateeight. This i10.
cted Verification
the effect ovity of the roto≈0.00015”, th
evels calculatedMCS where thak response (1by the analysislateral analysi
e compressor’gure 11. In th
the couplingedicted value aresponse of thredicted by th
alysis unbalanccations and foor of 1.25. The rechecked fo
Compressor
n
n is r. s
is
n
of or e d e st s, s
s e g at e e e
or e
or
Figur
Rotor
AURVbalanshoulpedesthe telocatimaximbasedand othe prespodeterm
Sucritica
Test K
Thaccurfashiovibratpredicweighspeedregardrespocoupl
2 Note:may noand wicouplinplacem
re 12) 3 Stage Co
rdynamic Mode
As previously T needs to ma
nce bunker is ld include the stals. The rotoest coupling (oion. The prmum bearing sd on the specifoil inlet temperredicted range
onse magnitudemine complian
ummarizing thal to this testin
Support sti
o Designthe me
o Reflecoperat
Verificatio
Rotor vibraduring the
o Includbunke
Knowledge / V
he verificatioracy of the roon. Beyond tion demonstrctive versus mht placed on thd bunker canding the mod
onse ratio) and ling2.
: For some well baot be identifiable oll not be appreciang. Performing thment and greater e
ompressor – MeRespon
eling
mentioned, tatch the config
used, the supdynamic effec
or model shoulor bunker driveredictions shostiffness (as reqfied ranges forratures. Finalles for the 1st ces (additional
nce with other r
he aspects of ng:
iffness to repre
n configurationechanical run t
cting the beating speed bala
on weight place
ation at the proURVT
de support motr pedestals
Verification
n test providotordynamic pthe pass/fail
ration tests, tmeasured respohe rotor. Perfon provide adddal response (i
rotor sensitivi
alanced and well don the test stand ably excited by a vee test in the balanexcitation of the 1s
Copyright
easured vs. Predinse
the rotordynamguration of the pport stiffness
cts of the bunkld also reflect te assembly) inuld cover thequired by API r the radial bealy, the analysiscritical speed a
information arequirements.)
f the rotordyn
esent the test ve
n for URVT peest on the shop
arings and peance bunker
ement and mag
obes or other lo
tion if probes a
des a determpredictions in observational
the URVT deonse discrepanormed correctlyditional accuri.e., mid-span ity to locations
damped rotors, thas a clear peak in terification weight nce bunker enablest critical speed for
t© 2013 by Tu
icted Verification
mic model fotest setup. If
s of the modeker bearings anthe ½ weight o
n its correct c.ge minimum t617 7th Edition
aring clearances should specifand verificatioas necessary t
namic modelin
ehicle
erformed durinp floor
edestals of th
gnitude
ocations as use
are mounted o
mination of tha quantitativnature of th
emonstrates thncy to a knowy, the operatinacy assuranceversus journa
s other than th
e 1st critical speedthe vibration data placed at the s mid‐span weightr between bearing
urbomachinery
n
or a
el nd of g. to n) es fy on to
ng
ng
he
ed
on
he ve he he
wn ng es al he
d
t g
Stabil
SVT M
Cuthe enshouldwill atin thenonsydampiof thediscusratio e
SVT D
It estimameasuaspect
1.
2.
3.
Daidentifmachimodalsystemsuch areceivimporconcer
Asprocesmultitemergthe daresponat onccommtechni
It aspectthat mchalleSVT ochalle
machinmid‐spaand agr
Laboratory, T
lity Verificatio
Methodology
urrently, there nd-user and OEd be used to acttempt to provie three funda
ynchronous excing ratio estime methodologssion will begiestimation.
Damping Ratio
should be noation” has beurement.” Thits:
. The fundamdamping ra
. Estimation processing resultant daonly estima
. Logarithmifor damping
amping ratio efication. Sincine is operatinl analysis whicm identificationas natural freq
ved much greartance with resrn in every fiel
s mentioned ssing analysis tude of estimaging, each techata. Some arense channel, wce. These tec
munities, such aique designed t
is beyond thets of damping machinery engenges and the ron a turbomac
enges when dea
es. All options regan probes, alternareed during contra
Texas A&M En
on Testing (SV
are no industrEM as to whatccurately perfoide some guida
amental elemecitation design
mation. Since thgy requiremenin with some g
o Estimation
oted as to wheen chosen s choice is m
mental modal atio.
of the dampanalysis of
amping ratio iated.
ic decrement isg ratio.
estimation is ace this identng, such testinch is a subset n. Identificatioquency and mater attention. spect to resonald whereas stab
earlier, the eof the measure
ation techniquhnique basicalle very simple
while others curchniques are bas controls andto utilize time
e scope of thratio estimati
gineers undersrecommended pchine, the estialing with the m
garding the use ofate unbalance weigact development w
ngineering Exp
VT)
ry standards int methodologieorm these SVTance in this areents of the ten, measuremenhis last elemennts for the oguidelines rega
hy the term “instead of “lmeant to emp
parameter of
ping ratio invthe measurems not measure
s its own estim
a subset of mtification occung is often cal
of the more gon of other momode shapes, h
This is likelance problems,bility is not as
estimation invement data. W
ues available aly involves a cand deal with
rve-fit multiplebeing develop
d speech procesor frequency d
is tutorial to ion. However, stand some opractices. Whemation procesmeasurement d
f the balance bunkght locations) showith the vendor.
periment Station
n place to guides and practiceTs. This tutoriaea, specificallyesting processnt process, and
nt dictates muchother two, ouarding damping
“damping ratilog decremenphasize severa
f interest is th
volves a postment data. Thed directly, it i
mation techniqu
modal parameteurs while thlled operationageneral field odal parametershas historicallyly due to thei a predominanmuch so.
volves a postWhile there are
and continuallycurve fitting oh just a single channels’ datped by varioussing, with eachdomain data.
discuss all thit is importan
of the peculiaen conducting ss faces severadata:
ker for URVT (e.g.,uld be specified
n
e s
al y, s: d h
ur g
o nt al
e
t-e s
e
er e
al of s, y ir nt
t-a y
of e a
us h
e nt ar a
al
Eacan brely approonly atechnwhosTechnfor a symm
Pemeasucontrimodefrequestimcharaforwaproxi
Thsister showcompmodewhereforwasepargyrosinfluedepenexammodespeedmome
The data response lo
The data significant excitationsmisalignm
The data modes, not
The data characterisstructures.
ach of the abbe used for accon a large n
opriate here beavailable at a f
niques assume e dynamic pniques relying turbomachine
metric cross-cou
erhaps the biggurements fromibutions from
e of interest. Muencies which mation procesacteristic, rotorard whirling amity and share
he easiest wayr mode pairs is the Campb
pressor. Typicae sisters remaine the backwardard mode. The rated with spescopics and sence of gyrosndent on the
mple, unlike thees for an overd due to theent.
is typically ocations.
contains addpresence
s within the ment, aerodynam
likely containt just the mode
is from astics are not lik
ove challengecurate stability
number of senecause responsfew restricted lthe system be
properties are on such an aswhere fluids wupling in the sy
gest estimationm a rotor’s SVT
several modeMany structure
can be diffis. Sharing
r systems posseand one backwe similar modal
y to observe is through a Cbell diagram al for betweenn very close in d mode’s frequsecond mode seed, indicatingsupport anisotscopics and s
overall rotore between-bearhung compres
e overhung im
Copyright
from only a
ditional respoof immeasurmachine such
mics, etc.
ns contributione of interest.
a system wke those for sta
s influences wy estimation. Snsors, meaningse measuremenlocations on a ing tested is a
symmetric ossumption are within the machystem [21,22].
n challenge is tT often consistes, more than es possess vercult to identithis high m
ess pairs of sisward that are l characteristic
the close proxCampbell diagfor a multistn-bearing macfrequency as s
uency is slightsisters becomeg the strongetropy for thessupport anisotr system charing compresso
ssor will be vempeller’s stro
t© 2013 by Tu
few vibratio
onse from thrable, interna
h as unbalance
n from multipl
whose dynamiatic, nonrotatin
what techniqueome techniqueg they are nonts are typicallmachine. Othe
a static structuror self-adjoinnot appropriat
hine create non
the fact that thts of significanjust solely th
ry close naturafy through thmodal densitster modes, onoften in clos
cs.
ximity of thesgram. Figure 1age centrifuga
chines, the firspeed increasetly less than th
e more and morer influence ose sisters. Thtropy is highlracteristics. Foor, the first sisteery sensitive tong gyroscopi
urbomachinery
on
he al e,
le
ic ng
es es ot ly er re
nt. te n-
he nt he al he ty ne se
se 13 al st s,
he re of he ly or er to ic
Tothe asforwarundersby thepeak nonsydirectiwhirlidampiphase and sspecia
Unappliesister the Sbehavmodescirculapeak imodesand, imode.
Laboratory, T
Figure
o date, many psumption that rd mode, is pstand why thise industry. Fir
in the frequynchronous excion with the ing mode. Anding estimationslope or mec
simple formulalist.
nfortunately, eed and only onbackward mod
SDOF dampinvior for a sims’ response canar excitation isis measured, ths are respondinin this case, b.
Texas A&M En
13) Example Ca
previous SVT only the mode
participating ins assumption rst, the measuruency responcitation was apintent of only
d finally, singln techniques, schanical log delas that are
even when fone peak is presde can be excing estimators.
mulated rotor sn be distinguishs being appliehe backward mng, instead of jbroadened, fro
ngineering Exp
ampbell Diagram
investigators e of interest, tyn the responsehas historicallrements often nse functions.pplied in the foy exciting thele degree of fresuch as ampliecrement, invofamiliar to e
orward circulasent in the meaited, reducing t Figure 14 system where hed. Even thou
ed and only a smode is excitedjust one, the p
om that due to
periment Station
m
have relied onypically the firse. It is easy toly been appliedonly show on. Second, thforward circulae first forwareedom (SDOFification factorolve convenienevery vibration
ar excitation iasurements, ththe accuracy oillustrates thithe individua
ugh the forwarsingle responsd. Because twoeak is distorteo just a singl
n
n st o d e e
ar d
F) r, nt n
is e
of is al d e o d e
Fi
Westimconsicomm
Badoptwill iown tto enrotordtestin
gure 14) Modal
While the methmation are stil
dered good munity, that hav
Multiple provide thdamping rabout a characteristechniquesfor stabilibackward measuremefrequency
To resolveMDOF teoutput (Mmultiple lo
Any candvalidated measuremefor shop tesystem whThis validasymmetrystability. Wsuch validthe model
ecause of the tion of estimaindependently trusted methodnd-users’ indedy