ISO 1940-2:1997(E) Mechanical vibration- Balance quality requirements of rigid rotors— Part 2: Balance errors 1 Scope This part of ISO 1940 covers the following; - identification of errors in the balancing process of rigid rotors: - assessment of errors; - guidelines for taking into account: - the evaluation of residual unbalance in ant two correction planes. 2 Normative references The following standards contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute previsions of this part of ISO 1940. At the time of publication, the editions indicated were valid. All standards are subject to revision, and parties to agreements based on this part of ISO 1940 are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the standards indicated below. Members of IEC and ISO maintain registers of currently valid International Standards. 1990, Mechanical vibration - Balancing - Vocabulary. }990/Amd. 1:1995, Amendment 1 to ISO 1925: 1990. ISO 1940-1:1986, Mechanical vibration - Balance quality requirements of rigidrotors - Part 1: Determination of permissible residual unbalance. Iso 2953: 1985, Balancing machines - Description and evaluation. 3 Definitions For the purposes of this part of ISO 1940, the definitions given in ISO 1925 (and Amendment 1) apply. 4 Sources of balance errors Balance errors may be classified into one of the following groups: a) systematic errors, in which the amount and angle can be evaluated either by calculation by measurement; b) randomly variable errors, in which the amount and angle vary in an unpredictable manner for a number of measurements carried out under the same conditions; ) scalar errors, in which the maximum amount can be evaluated or estimated, but the angle is indeterminate. Depending on the manufacturing processes used, the same error may be placed in ‘one or more of the above categories. Examples of the sources of errors which may occur are listed in 4.1, 4,2 and 4.3. Some of these errors are discussed in greater detail in annex A. 4.1 Systemi errors The following are examples of the sources of systematic errors. a) Inherent unbalance in the drive shaft of the balancing machine. ) Radial and axial runout in the drive element on the rotor shaft axis. d) Radial and axial runout in the rotor fit for components or in the mandrel (see subclause 5.3)) Lack of concentricity between journals and support surfaces used %4 balancing. f) Radial and axial runout of rolling element bearings which are not the service bearings and which are used to support the rotor in the balancing machine. 9) Radial and axial runout of rotating races (and their tracks) of rolling element service bearings fitter after balancing. fh) Unbalance from keys and keyways. 1) Residual magnetism in rotor or mandrel. i) Errors caused by re-assembly. k) Errors caused by the balancing equipment and instrumentation. 1) Differences between service shaft and balancing mandrel diameters. m) Defect in universal joints. 1) Permanent bend in a rotor after balancing. 4.2 Randomly variable errors The following are examples of the sources of randomly variable errors. a) Loose parts. b) Entrapped liquids or solids. ©) Distorsion caused by thermal effects. d) Windage effects. e) Use of a loose coupling as drive element. f) Transient bend in horizontal rotor caused by gravitational effects, when the rotor is stationary. 4.3 Scalar errorsThe following are examples of the sources of scalar errors. a) Clearance at interfaces which are to be disassembles after the balancing process. b) Excessive clearance in universal joints. ©) Excessive clearance on mandrel or shaft. d) Design and manufacturing tolerances. ) Runout of the balancing machine support rollers if their diameters and the rotor journal diameter are the same or nearly the same or have an integer ratio. 5 Assessment of errors 5.1 General In some cases rotors are in balance by design, are uniform in material and are machined to such narrow tolerances that they do not need to be balanced after manufacture. However, in the large majority of rotors initial unbalance exceeds the permitted levels given in ISO 1940-1, so that these rotors have to be balanced. Subclauses. 5.2 to 5.6 deal with balance errors that may occur during this process. 5.2 Errors caused by balancing equipment and instrumentation Balance errors caused by balancing equipment and instrumentation may increase with the amount of the unbalance present. Every attempt should therefore be made to design a symmetrical rotor. Futhermore, by considering unbalance causes during the design stage, some causes can be eliminated altogether, e.g. by combining several parts into one, or reduced by decreased fit tolerances, The cost of tighter tolerances must be weighed against the benefit of decreased unbalance causes. Where such causes cannot be eliminated or reduced to negligible levels, they should be mathematically evaluated. 5.3 Balance errors caused by radial and axial runout of fits for components When a perfectly balanced rotor component is mounted eccentric to the rotor shaftaxis, the resulting static unbalance U, equals the mass m of component multiplied by the eccentricity <: U=m-e a ‘An additional unbalance couple result if the component is mounted eccentrically in a plane other than the plane of the rotor centre of mass. The larger the plane distance from the centre of mass, the larger will be the induced unbalance couple. It a perfectly balanced component is mounted such that its principal axis of inclined to the rotor shaft axis but its centre of mass remains on the rotor shaft axis, an unbalance couple will result. For small angular displacement 4y between the two axes, the resulting unbalance couple D. is nearly equal to the difference between the moment of inertia about a transverse axis through the component centre of mass, /,, and the moment of inertia about its principal axis of inertia, multiplied by the angle 4y in radians: DX I= 1)* dy w= (2) This statement is only valid if the component presents rotational symmetry. Equation (2) is therefore particularly applicable to the balancing of disks on arbors. If both radial and axial runout of the component occur, each error can be calculated separately in its allocated value in the bearing or correction planes and then be combined vectorially (see also ISO 1940-1:1986, figure 1). 5.4 Assessment of errors in the balan 9 operation The purpose of balancing is to produce rotors that are within specified limits of residual unbalance. To ensure that the limits have been met, errors should be controlled and accounted for in the residual unbalance measurements. When a balancing machine is used, various sources of errors exist, namely the type of rotor to be balanced, any tooling used to support or drive the rotor, the balancing machine support structure (machine bearings, cradles etc.), the balancing machine sensing system, and the electronics and read-out system. Any or all of these sources can contribute errors, by recognizing the characteristics of mosterrors, it may be possible to focus on their causes and either correct them, minimize them or take them into account in the assessment of residual unbalance by calculating their effects. The balancing machine used should conform to ISO 2953, such that all its systematic errors are eliminated or corrected, and its randomly variable errors are limited to U,p., a8 defined in ISO 2953. Where the assessment is carried out in the balancing machine, and the rotor mass or measuring plane positions differ significantly from those for the proving rotor used in the balancing machine tests, further testing should be carried out with the actual workpiece to determine the minimum achievable residual unbalance at the specified measuring planes on the workpiece. 5.5 Experimental assessment of randomly variable errors If significant randomly variable errors are suspected it is necessary to carry out several measuring runs to assess the magnitude of these errors. In doing so it is important to ensure that the random errors are produced randomly in each run (e.g. by ensuring that the angular position of the rotor is different for the start of each run). The magnitude of the error can be evaluated by applying standard statistical techniques to the results obtained. However, in most cases the following approximate procedure will be adequate. Plot the measured residual unbalance vectors and find the mean vector from all the runs (see figure 1). Draw the smallest circle about centre A to enclose all the points. The vector represents an estimation of the residual unbalance and the radius of the circle an estimation of the maximum possible error of each single reading. The uncertainty of these results will usually be diminished by increasing the number of runs carried out. NOTE - In some cases, particularly if one point is significantly different from the other, the error estimated may be unacceptably large. In this case a more detailed analysis will be necessary to determine the errors. 5.6 Exper ental assessment of systematic errors In many cases most of the systematic errors can be found using index balancing.o Plots of severst measurements are indicated by X Figure 1 — Plot of measured residual unbalance vectors (randomly variable errors) This involves carrying out the following procedure. Mount the rotor alternately at 0” and 180° relative to the item which is the source of a particular error. Measure the unbalances several times in both positions, if and , as shown in figure 2, represent the mean unbalance vectors with the rotor mounted at 0° and 180° respectively, a diagram can be constructed for each measurement plane where C is Rotor residual unbalance tor rotor mounted at 07: Ch ° Mean unbalance vector for Mean unbatance vector for ‘rotor mounted at OK rotor mounted a 180" Systematic error 8E Figure 2— Plot of measured residual unbalance vectors and systematic error the mid-point of the distance AB. The vector represents the particular systematic error and the vectors and represent the rotor residual unbalance with the rotor at 0° and 180° , respectively.NOTE - In this case it has been assumed #t the rotor has been turnded relative to the phase reference. If, however, the phase reference remains fixed relative to the rotor: ~ the vector OC represents the rotor residual unbalance; and ~ the vectors OA and CB represent the particular systematic error with the phase reference at 0° and 180° , respectively. 6 Evaluation of combined error Systematic errors whose magnitude and phase are known may be eliminated, for example, by applying temporary correction masses to the tooling or the rotor during the balancing process or by mathematically correcting the results. if the systematic errors are not corrected or not correctable in either of these ways, they should be combined as shown below with randomly variable errors and scalar errors. Let [4U] be the amount of an uncorrected error from any source, preferably assessed with sufficient confidence limit, AU be the amount of the combined uncorrected errors. Then the following formula 4 40] wl) is the one that gives the safest evaluation of errors. It guarantees that, even in case of the most unfavourable error combination, the rotor is acceptable, provided the criteria of clause 7 are met. The formula 4U=>) JU] is based upon the most pessimistic assumption that all the uncorrected errors fall into the same angular direction and their absolute numerical values should therefor be summed up.In it is found that, after applying this formula and then inserting the value JU in the formula given in clause 7, the combined uncorrected error would cause the rotor to be out of tolerance, then an attempt to reduce the more significant errors is recommended. In some cases a more realistic approach may be used. It takes into account that not all errors from various sources are likely to fall into the same angular direction. Then, the combined error JU’ may be evaluated by using the "root of the ‘sum of the squares” formula Dacy* (a) The above procedures should be carried out for each measuring plane. Under appropriate conditions the errors are evaluated by measurements on a significant sample of rotors. It is then assumed that errors of the same magnitude will be present on all similar rotors which have been manufactured and assembled in the same way. For mass-produced rotors, a statistically based process for finding the combined error may need to be agreed upon between user and supplier. 7 Acceptance criteria For each measuring plane, let Urey be the magnitude of the permissible residual unbalance obtained from ISO 1940-1; U,» be the magnitude of the measured residual unbalance of a single reading after corrections have been carried out for systematic errors of known amount and angle:AU be the magnitude of the combined error as defined in clause 6. The rotor balance shall be check is performed by the manufacturer if the following condition is satisfied: Un Up AU 6) If AUis found to be less than 5 % of U),., it may be disregarded. If an additional balance check is performed by the user the rotor balance shall be accepted if Um U pert AU o If this condition is not met, the balancing procedures may need to be reviewed or repeated. NOTE - If a change of unbalance during transportation of the rotor is expected, this should also be taken into consideration. 8 Determination of residual unbalances Clause 8 of ISO 1940-1:1986 describes methods for the determination of residual unbalance in a rigid rotor. The most important methods are: a) the method set out in subclause 8. to ISO 2953; + it requires a balancing machine according b) the method set out in subclause 8.2: it requires an instrument reading amplitude and phase. Where two-plane balancing is required an additional procedure for plane separation is needed: 24 example a computer with an algorithm for the influence coefficient method. Annex B provides typical data which could be used to check such an algorithm. NOTE - In most practical cases the two methods referred to above are adequate. However, If there is doubt about the procedures, improved accuracy could be obtained by using known trial masses at different angular positions in both planes. There are a number of Possible ways of doing this; the method referred to in subclause 8.3, ISO 1940-1:1986,applied to two planes, is one such method. If there is concern about the linearity of the response to unbalance, the procedure should be repeated using trial unbalances of different amounts.Annex A (informative) Examples of errors, their identification and evaluation jary equipment Example of errors associated with residual unbalances and originating from auxiliary equipment are discussed below and summarized in table A.1 See figures AA,A2 and A.3. A.1.1 Errors originating from inherent unbalance and eccentricity in drive element, mandrel, etc. These errors can be evaluated by index balancing. This procedure can be complicated by non-repeatability of mechanical fits (see A.1.3) and workpiece errors (see clause A.2). A.1.2. Errors originating from bearings If rolling element bearings are fitted for a balancing operation they will introduce an error proportional to the eccentricity or angular misalignment of the rotating races (and their tracks) and the rotor mass. This error may be determined by indexing the bearing races 180° on their mounting surfaces. NOTE - In the context of this item, eccentricity is assumed to result from radial and/or axial runout. A.1.3 Errors originating form mechani I fits Mechanical fits can be a potential source of error, e.g. a change of unbalance may result from re-assembly. There are many possible sources of errors from fits, for example if there is radial clearance or if the interference is too great or if the connecting bolts interfere with the spigot/pilot location. The scatter caused by non-repeatability of fits should be determined by a repeated re-assembly, with clearances taken up at different angles. Each time unbalance readings are taken and a mean value is obtained.AA Errors associated with the mass of balancing equipment The mass of the rotating tooling for balancing (however, not necessarily the mandrel) should be reduced to a minimum to reduce the error resulting from spigot/pilot clearances or runouts. Reducing the mandrel mass increases the sensitivity of a soft bearing machine but normally produces little benefit on a hard bearing machine. A.2 Errors ot 9 from the workpiece Examples of errors associated with residual unbalances and originating from the workpiece are discussed below and summarized in table A.1 See figure A.2. ae eretstte Figure A.1 —Workplece located on mandrel A241 Errors ing from loose parts The error caused by loose part can be obtained by starting and stopping the rotor, ensuring that the angular position of the rotor is different at the start of each run. and taking a reading for each run. the error and mean unbalance can be found using the method described in subclause 5.5. Changing the direction of rotationmay be helpful in certain cases, but should be undertaken with caution. It should be noted that on certain machines the effect of loose parts may only become apparent under actual service conditions. A.2.2 Errors origit particles ion form presence of entrapped liquids or small loose Where the presence of entrapped liquids or loose particles is suspected and cannot be avoided, the rotor should be left standing with 0° at the top for a period of time, started again, and then a reading taken. This is repeated having the 90° , 180° and 270° position of the rotor successively at the top. The method of subclause 5.5 can then be applied to find the error and the mean unbalance. Results should be examined to avoid confusion with thermal effects (see A.2.3) e.g. due to the rotor standing still for some time. effects A.2.3 Errors originating from therm: Distortion and the resulting unbalance caused by not allowing the rotor to remain stationary in the balancing machine for even relatively short periods or by running the rotor until the unbalance vector has stabilized. This may be done at a very low speed, e.g. 5 r/min to r/min. Welding or heat-generating machining operation for unbalance correction may result in significant rotor distortion. Dissipation of the localized heat and/or certain stabilizing running periods are usually required to equalize the temperature in the rotor and restore it to its normal shape. A.2.4 Errors originating from bearings The rotating bearing races should, in operation, retain the angular relationship to the rotor they had during the balancing operation. Otherwise errors similar to those described in A.1.2 can occur. Spurious couple unbalance readings in both soft and hard bearing balancing machines can, for example, result from axial runout of the rotating thrust face, from a ball bearing being tilted relative to the shaft axis, or from a bent rotor etc. These effects can be demonstrated and the error evaluated by running the rotor at different speeds, 72) and 72, as follows:a) For a hard bearing balancing machine, the axial runout effects may be found in unbalance units, as , at speed 7): a y=—1 J Ui- Wi] ” —. a DO p= [ Tie- Vex] w= (8) where Uii, Ure» Uni, Use are the readings caused by the sum of the unbalance-simulating effects of axial runout and the (residual) unbalances Uz, Ux in the left and right planes at the speeds 7; and 7» respectively. The machine should be calibrated in the same unbalance units for each of these speeds and planes. b) For a soft bearing machine the unbalance simulating effect depends on the vibratory masses in the soft bearing machine suspension system and is, therefore, inversely proportional to the square of the speed. Thus the same formulae result. In these calculations, it is assumed that the forces on the bearinas of a hard bearing balancing machine caused by axial runout of a rotating thrust face are independent of speed, whereas in a soft bearing machine, the bearing vibrations caused by unbalance are independent of speed. The above formulae hold true only if measurements are taken at a speed far enough away from the resonance speed of the rotor and/or the balancing machine. Similar effects can be observed at very low balancing speeds when bent rotor journals are mounted on open rollers or when the supports of a balancing machine with flat roller surfaces lack vertical axis freedom. These errors can be minimized by appropriate design of the balancing machine support structure. In some cases the error caused by axial runout of the thrust face can be avoided by adjustment of the thrust bearing. A.2.5. Errors originating from mechanical fits Unbalance may change in operation owing to the design or improper assembly of sfit may also change if the rotor is partially disassembled after balancing and re-assembled (refer also to A.1.3) A.2.6 Errors originating from runout of end-drive mounting surface Where the balancing machine end-drive shaft is attached to an eccentric spigot/pilot at the end of the rotor, an error will be introduced which cannot be detected by index balancing. It can only be calculated knowing the effective drive eae eccesiy fo Mermepeny oon [Sar ena weit \ Figure A2 — Workplace located en its own journal mass and the spigot/pilot eccentricity vector relative to the rotor shaft axis. If necessary, temporary compensation can be applied so the appropriate angle during balancing. A.2.7 Errors originating from magnetic effects Magnetic effects amy primarily manifest themselves in the balancing machine by causing an erroneous unbalance read-out if their frequency is at or near the rotational frequency. For instance, this may be due to the rotors magnetic field wiping across the balancing machine's pock-ups at a once-per-revolution frequency. The influence of a magnetized rotor is best eliminated either by shielding the pick-ups or by selecting, on a hard bearing balancing machine, a sufficiently higher balancingFigure A:3— One Journal on mandrel and one on workplace speed, where the influence is no longer significant. The presence of magnetic effects is best discovered by taking unbalance readings at different speeds at which the rotor is rigid.Annex B (informative) Typical data for checking the algorithm referred to in clause 8 b) Table 8.1 - Typical data for checking the algorithm referred to in clause 8 b) Without test mass ‘With Test_mass in pla o ‘With test mass in plane Transducer No. 1 30 000 g+mm. 0" | No. 2 20 000.g-mm. 0" Ne. ‘Amplitude [Phase | Amplitude | Phase | Amplitude [Phase 1 1,50 o 3,10 60" 2at 320" 2 2,10 130" 1,90 250" 2,09 00" "The resulting residual unbalances ar ~ plane No. 1: 6 500 g+ mm (213°) ~ plane No, 2: 18 900 g mm (108) NOTE - The phase of the residual unbalance vesior Is normally not needed to determing the balance quayAnnex C (informative) Bibliography ISO 8821:1989, Mechanical vibration - Balancing - Shaft and fitment key convention.