19730005750

&!>.
NASA CR 121107
MTI 72TR32
FLEXIBLE ROTOR BALANCING BY

THE INFLUENCE COEFFICIENT METHOD
PART I: EVALUATION OF THE EXACT POINT-
SPEED AND LEAST SQUARES PROCEDURES
by
Juergen M. Tessarzik
MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED
Prepared for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Lewis Research Center
Contract NAS3-14420
William J. Anderson, Chief

Bearings and Mechanical Power Transfer Branch
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of Government-sponsored work. Neither

the United States, nor the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
nor any person acting on behalf of NASA:
A.) Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with

respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the inform-
ation contained in this report, or that the use of any information,
apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately-owned rights; or
B.) Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or
process disclosed in this report.
As used above, "person acting on behalf of NASA" includes any employee or con-
tractor of NASA, or employee of such contractor, to the extent that such
employee or contractor of NASA or employee of such contractor prepares,
disseminates, or provides access to any information pursuant to his employment
or contract with NASA, or his employment with such contractor.
Requests for copies of this report should be referred to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical Information Facility
P.O. Box 33
College Park, Md. 20740
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA CR- 12 1107
4. Title and Subtitle FLEXIBLE ROTOR BALANCING BY THE INFLUENCE 5. Report Date
July 1972
COEFFICIENT METHOD, PART I: EV ALUATION OF THE EXACT POINT-
6. Performing Organization Code
SPEED AND LEAST- SQUARES PROCEDURES
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

MTI-72TR32
Juergen M. Tessarzik
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
.-M.-vitf >1:J V.{5."-,-.- : - . - - . , ' i ; '
Mechanical Technology Incorpora ted
11. Contract or Grant No.
968 Albany-Shaker Road NAS 3-14420
Latham, New York 12110
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Contractor Report
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washing, D. C. 20546
15. Supplementary Notes

William J. Anderson, Chief, Bearings and Mechanical Power Transfer Branch, NASA Lewis Research
Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135
16. Abstract
An experimental test program was conducted to extend the verified operating region of the
Influence Coefficient Method's Exact Point-Speed procedure for balancing of flexible rotating
machinery. Also, the Least Squares procedure (of which the Exact Point-Speed procedure is a
particular case) was applied to several test cases which were identical to those investigated
by the Exact Point-Speed procedure. A comparison of the effectiveness of both balancing pro-
cedures under identical test conditions was thus obtained.
The practical aspects of balancing real, flexible rotors were investigated through inclusion
of rotor out-of-roundness data at the measurement probe locations. The computer program was
demonstrated to be fully capable of handling out-of-roundness data in the investigation.
Testing was performed predominantly with a machine having a 41-inch (104 cm) long, 126-pound
(57 kg) rotor. This rotor was operated over a speed range encompassing three rotor-bearing
system critical speeds.
Both balancing procedures were evaluated for several different conditions of initial rotor
unbalance. Safe (and slow) passage through all the critical speeds was obtained after two or
three balancing runs in most cases.
The Least Squares procedure was found to be generally equivalent in capability to the Exact
Point-Speed procedure for the configurations studied. (U)
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)l 18. Distribution Statement
Flexible Rotor Balancing, Computer Methods Unclassified-unlimited
19. Security dassif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif . (of this page) 21 . No. of Pages 22. Price*
Unclassified Unclassified 113 $3.00
*For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151
FOREWORD
The investigation reported herein was performed by Mechanical Technology

Incorporated under Contract NAS3-14420 for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Lewis Researph Center, Cleveland;-. Ohio. Mr. William
J. Anderson was the NASA Project Manager, and Dr. Robert H. Badgley was the
MTI Project Manager. '-Ids-1" .vi' . */'"'
-- '.'y:-n-v;_}/,,.;,,,. ;_ ^ _.
The Influence Coefficient Balancing computer programs used for the success-
ful balancing of the test rotor described herein, as well as the analysis
upon which the computer: programs are based, were written by Dr. Jorgen Lund,
Consultant to MTI. ;
The experimental data reported herein was acquired with the assistance of Mr,
Walter Spodnewski, Senior Technician. The computer calculations were conduc-
ted by Mrs. F. Gillham, Engineering Analyst.
-in
mtentionatty Left Blank
Page
ABSTRACT
.*
An experimental test program was conducted to extend the verified operating
region of the Influence Coefficient Method's Exact Point-Speed procedure for
balancing of flexible rotating;(:machinery.._ .Also, the Least Squares procedure
(of which the Exact Point-Speed procedure":is a- ''particular, case) was applied to
several test cases which were identical to those investigated by the Exact
Point-Speed procedure. A comparison of the effectiveness of both balancing
procedures under identical test conditions was thus obtained.
The practical aspects of" balancing real, flexible rotors were investigated
through inclusion of rotor out-of-roundness data at the measurement probe loca-
tions. The computer program was demonstrated to be fully capable of handling
out-of-roundness data in the investigation.
Testing was performed predominantly with a machine having a 41-inch (104 cm)
long, 126-pound (57 kg) rotor. This rotor was operated over a speed range en-
compassing three rotor-bearing system critical speeds.
Both balancing procedures were evaluated for several different conditions of

initial rotor unbalance. Safe.(and slow) passage through all the critical
speeds was obtained after two or three balancing runs in most cases.
The Least Squares procedure was found to be generally equivalent in capability

to the Exact Point-Speed procedure for the configurations ^studied.
v
Page Intentionally Left B(ank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .........'..... v
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . 0 .'.'... ...:.,.... . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
SUMMARY.................................. 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
THEORY OF LEAST SQUARES BALANCING PROCEDURE. . . . . . . ; . . ' . . . . 4
FLEXIBLE ROTOR BALANCING TEST A P P A R A T U S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Test Rotor Configuration - Three-Mass Version . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Test Rotor Configuration - Two-Mass Version . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Features Common to Both Rotors - Three- and Two-Mass Versions . . . 7
Test Rotor Support Bearings ..................... 7
Mechanical Features of Apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
General Analysis of Rotor-Bearing System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Initial Rotor Condition Prior To All,Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sequence of Balancing Runs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
First Test Cases Rotor With Corkscrew Unbalance. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Test results for rotor with corkscrew unbalance .- Balanced
by Exact Point-Speed Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Test results for rotor with corkscrew unbalance - Balanced
by Least Squares Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Second Test Cases Rotor With ln-Lines In-Phase Unbalance . . . . . 17
Test results for rotor with in-line,, in-phase unbalance -
Balanced by the Least Squares Procedure. ...... 19
Third Test Case; Rotor With In-Line3 Out-0f-?hase Unbalance. ... 19
Test results for rotor with in-line, out-of-phase
unbalance - Balanced by the Least Squares Procedure 19
Fourth Test Case: Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance. . . . . . 21
Test results for two-mass rotor with conical unbalance . . . . 23
Two-Mass Rotor With Large Out-Of-Roundness At One Probe Location. . 23
Test results for two-mass rotor with out-of-roundness at
one probe location - Conical unbalance configuration . . . . . 26
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
Page
Three-Mass Rotor With Small Out-Of-Roundness At All Probe
Locations 27
Test results for three-mass rotor with out-of-roundness at
all probe locations. . . . . . . . . . . 28
Placement of Trial Weights At One Or Two Locations. . . . . . . . . 28
CONCLUSIONS . 30
REFERENCES '. . 33
APPENDICES
A - BALANCING PROCEDURE . . 34
B ~ CALIBRATION PROCEDURE ......... 35
C - TYPICAL BALANCING DATA.FOR A SELECTED CASE. . . . . . . . . . 37
D - CALCULATED CORRECTION WEIGHTS FOR TEST BALANCING RUNS . . . . 39
FIGURES 41
DISTRIBUTION ......... 108
Vlll
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Assembly Drawing of Flexible-Rotor Test Rig . . . 43
2 Photograph of Aluminum End Disc (Two-Mass Rotor). . . . . . . . 45
3 End View of Rotor End Mass (Opposite Drive End) With Reference
Mark and Typical Holes for Balancing Weights 46
4 View of Flexible-Rotor Test Rig. ... . . . . . . . 47
5 Bearing Assembly Drawing of Flexible-Rotor Test Rig 49
6 Tilting-Pad Journal Bearing for Test Rig Rotor . . . 51
7 Probe and Balancing Plane Locations Along Test Rotor (Three-
Mass Rotor). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8 Probe and Balancing Plane Locations Along Test Rotor (Two-
Mass Rotor). 53
9 Schematic of Flexible-Rotor Balancing Instrumentation. . . . . 54
10 Critical Speed Map for Flexible-Rotor Test Rig (Three-Mass
Rotor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 55
11 Undamped Critical Speed Mode Shapes for Flexible-Rotor Test
Rig (Three-Mass Rotor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
12 Critical Speed Map for Flexible-Rotor Test Rig (Two-Mass
Rotor) . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
13 Undamped Critical Speed Mode Shapes for Flexible-Rotor Test
Rig (Two-Mass Rotor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
14 First Test Case: Rotor With Corkscrew Unbalance . . . . . . . 59
15 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 Initial Condition
(Corkscrew Unbalance) and After Three Consecutive Balancing -
Runs by the Exact Point-Speed Procedure 60
(Corkscrew Unbalance) and After Three Consecutive Balancing
Runs by the Exact Point-Speed Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Runs by the Exact Point-'Speed Procedure. 62
18 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition
(Corkscrew Unbalance) and -After Three Consecutive Balancing
Runs by the Exact Point-Speed Procedure 63
19 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition
Runs by the Exact Point-Speed Procedure. 64
ix
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure

(Corkscrew Unbalance) and After Four Consecutive Balancing
Runs by the Least Squares Procedure. ... . . . . .65

Runs by the Least Squares Procedure. . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Runs by-the Least Squares Procedure. ... . . ... 67

Runs by the Least Squares Procedure, 68
24 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4.- Initial Condition

Runs.by the Least Squares Procedure. .... . ....... . . ... . 69
25 Second Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance. . . . 70

(In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance) and After Two Consecutive
Balancing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure..... . ....... . . 71

(In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance)and After Two Consecutive
Balancing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure. . . . .... . . . 72

Balancing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure. ... ....... . . 73

(In-Line, .In-Phase Unbalance) and After Two Consecutive
Balancing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure . 74
30> Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4.- Initial Condition

Balancing.Runs by the Least Squares Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . 75
31 Third Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance . . 76
32 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station I - Initial -Condition

(In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance) and After Two Consecutive
Balancing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure . ... 77
.x
33 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station 2 - Initial Condition (In-

Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance) and After Two Consecutive Balanc-
ing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure, 78

ing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure 79

ing Runs by the Least Squares Procedure 80
36 Fourth Test Case: Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance 81
37 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition of

Two-Mass Rotor (Conical Unbalance) and After One Balancing
Run Each by the Exact Point-Speed and the Least Squares
Procedures ^

Two-Mass Rotor (Conical Unbalance) and After One Balancing Run
Each by the Exact Point-Speed and the Least Squares Procedures . . 83



of Two-Mass Rotor (Conical Unbalance) and After One Balancing
Run Each by the Exact Point-Speed and the Least Squares
Procedures 86
42 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Vertical Maximum

Dynamic Displacement for Two-Mass Rotor at Station 1 87



XI
Figure
46 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Horizontal Maximum
Dynamic Displacement for Two-Mass Rotor at Station 4. 91
47 Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance - With and Without Out-

Of-Roundness Data Included in Least Squares Balancing
Calculations . 92

Two-Mass Rotor (Conical Unbalance) and After One Balancing Run,
With and Without Inclusion of Shaft Out-Of-Roundness Data in
the Correction Weight Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . 93

Without Inclusion of Shaft Out-Of-Roundness Data in the Correc-
tion Weight Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

With and Without Inclusion of Shaft Out-Of-Roundness Data in the
Correction Weight Calculations. . . . . . . ... 95

Correction Weight Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . 96

Correction Weight Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

of Two-Mass Rotor (Conical Unbalance) and After One Balancing
Runs With and Without Inclusion of Shaft Out-Of-Roundness Data
in the Correction Weight Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
54 Unbalance Vectors and Correction Weight Vectors For Test Rotor

With In-Lines In-Phase Unbalance Condition (Second Test Case
Data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
55 Unbalance Vectors and Correction Weight Vectors For Test Rotor

With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
56 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition (In-

Line, In-Phase Unbalance) and After One Balancing Run, With and
Without Inclusion of Shaft Out-Of-Roundness Data in the Correc-
tion Weight Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
xii
LIST OF FIGURES (concluded)
Figure Page

(In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance) and After One Balancing Run,
the Correction Weight Calculations 102

the Correction Weight Calculations. . . . 103

the Correction Weight Calculations 104

the Correction Weight Calculations . . . .... 105
61 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With

In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance and Trial Weights in Zero-Degree
Location Only 106
62 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With

In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance and Trial Weights in ISO-Degree
Location Only . , . 107
Xlll
LIST OF TABLES
Number . . Page
I Balance Improvement for First Test Case: Rotor with

Corkscrew Unbalance, Balanced by Exact Point-Speed
Procedure 16
II Balance Improvement for First Test Case: Rotor with

Corkscrew Unbalance, Balanced by Least Squares Procedure . . . . 18
III Balance Improvement for Second Test Case: Rotor with

In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance, Balanced by Exact Point-
Speed Procedure 20
IV Balance Improvement for Third Test Case: Rotor with

In-Line, Out-of-Phase Unbalance, Balanced by Least
Squares Procedure 22
V Balance Improvement for Two-Mass Rotor with Conical

Unbalance, Balanced by Exact Point-Speed Procedure 24
VI Balance Improvement for Two-Mass Rotor with Conical

Unbalance, Balanced by the Least Squares Procedure 25
VII Summary of Rotor Balance Improvements 32
xiv
SUMMARY
Expanded assessment of the "real world" effectiveness of two related flexible

rotor balancing procedures has been obtained from the continuation of a test
program begun under NASA contract in 1969. The two balancing procedures in-
vestigated were the Exact Point-Speed Influence Coefficient Method (for which
some results were already reported previously) and the Least Squares Influence
Coefficient Method. The objectives of the herein-reported test program were to
experimentally confirm the validity of the balancing procedures for various
rotors and unbalance configurations, and to assess the practical aspects of
applying the method to an actual flexible-rotor machine.
The major part of the test program was performed with a machine having a 41-inch
(104 cm) long, 126-pound (57 kg) rotor, which was supported by two self-acting
fluid-film pivoted-pad journal bearings. The rotor had a three-mass configura-
tion, one mass being centrally located between bearings, the remaining two
masses being overhung at each end of the rotor. For some of the tests the rotor
was modified through removal of one of the overhung masses at one end of the
rotor, which reduced rotor weight to 110 pounds (50 kg).
The rotor was operated at speeds up to 15,000 rprn. Three rotor-bearing system
critical speeds were encountered within this speed range. The first two critical
speeds were essentially "rigid body" criticals. The third critical, which
occurred at about 11,000 rpm for the three-mass rotor and at a somewhat higher
rotational speed for the two-mass rotor, was the first flexural critical of the
rotor. Rotor damping at the flexural critical was very low for the three-mass
rotor due to the journal bearings being located at the nodal points of the rotor.
The test machine thus provided an excellent (severe) challenge for evaluation of
the influence coefficient balancing method.
The following conditions of initial rotor unbalance were investigated for the
three-mass configuration rotor:
I. Rotor with substantial unbalance added along the rotor in a corkscrew

configuration (weights spaced 90 angularly apart, progressing in a
corkscrew fashion from one end of rotor to other); .see Figure 14.
II. Rotor with substantial unbalance added along the rotor in an in-line,
in-phase configuration (single axial plane, weights all on same side
of shaft centerline); see Figure 25.
III. Rotor with substantial unbalance added along the rotor in an in-line,
out-cf-phase configuration (single axial plane, weights on overhung
masses on same side of shaft centerline but opposite from weights on
central mass); see Figure 31.
For the two-mass rotor, one rotor unbalance configuration was investigated:
IV. Rotor with substantial unbalance added to the overhung disc; see Figure
36.
Additionally, the effect of rotor out-of-roundness at the measurement loca-
tions upon balancing effectiveness was evaluated experimentally for the two-
mass rotor with unbalance weights placed at the overhung disc.
Satisfactory rotor balance was achieved for all unbalance arrangements and
for both rotor configurations with reasonable effort.
For two test cases (II and III) the three-mass rotor was balanced with only
two series of trial weight runs when the Least Squares procedure was used.
The two-mass rotor, which exhibits more bearing damping at the approach to
the third critical sp.eed and therefore a much less rapid rise in rotor ampli-
tudes, was satisfactorily balanced after one series of trial weight runs by
either of the two balancing procedures investigated.
Comparison of all test results, including those from previously presented

work, reveals the Least Squares procedure to be generally as icapableeashthe
Exact Point-Speed procedure. Furthermore, tests with substantial out-of- ,,
roundness at the measuring stations have clearly demonstrated that the capa'r
bility to subtract rotor out-of-roundness is essential when proximity probes
are used to acquire vibration data. Failure to account for eccentricity or
out-of-roundness of the rotor surface at the measurement probe locations will
severely affect final balance quality.
The dependency of the balancing procedures upon accurate instrumentation to

obtain phase and amplitude measurements during trial weight runs was demon-
strated during one phase of the experimental program.
Application of the Influence Coefficient Method (either the Exact Point-Speed

or the Least Squares Procedure) to specific flexible rotor balancing problem
situations in commercial machinery appears warranted. Finally, with respect
to balancing technology, the capability of either procedure to balance flexi-
ble rotors which must operate through several flexural critical speeds may
now be evaluated.
To some extent, the definition of "reasonable effort" in flexible rotori

balancing will always remain relative, and must await the availability of
"effectiveness data" relative to many or all other flexible rotor balancing
methods.
INTRODUCTION.
The need for well-developed flexible rotor, balancing technology, together

with the economical and technical benefits which are expected to result from
this capability once it becomes available to technical users, have been amply
described in References 1 and 2. .This report documents the results of a con-
tinuing effort to assess new and untried flexible rotor balancing procedures
and evaluate their .effectiveness for "real-world" applications. A previous
report (Reference!) described in detail the Influence Coefficient Method
adapted for flexible rotor balancing, and particularly the Exact Point-Speed
procedure, which is computationally the simplest application of this method to
flexible rotor balancing. Reference 1 also presented experimental results
where a fluid-film bearing supported rotor was balanced for safe (and slow)
passage through the third (first flexural) critical speed. Three particular
combinations of intentional unbalance added to the test rotor were examined.
This report continues with additional results obtained by the same balancing
procedure for the original test rotor which is characterized by a three-mass
configuration, and then proceeds to a modified rotor where one overhung end
mass was removed to produce significant changes in rotor vibration amplitudes
and response mode shapes.
The new procedure for flexible rotor, balancing evaluated in this report is
termed the Least Squares balancing procedure. It is also based upon the
Influence Coefficient Method, but differs computationally from the previously
examined Exact Point-Speed balancing procedure in that it is not limited to
the .solution of a square matrix (and thus to a limited amount of trial weight
data for a given number of rotor balancing planes). Instead, the Least
Squares procedure minimizes the squares of the residual amplitudes when the
balancing data fed into the program exceeds the square matrix .requirement.
Practically, this capability, will allow the use of multiple sets of trial
weight data, which were acquired in one run, but at several different rota-
tional speeds. (A brief treatment of the mathematical derivation of the
Least Squares balancing procedure is given in Reference 3, Appendix A.)
Balancing tests performed with the aid of-the Least Squares procedure dupli-
cated those which were done by. the Exact Point-Speed procedure (including
those performed previously and reported in Reference 1). A realistic compar-
ison of the relative effectiveness of both procedures has thus been obtained.
THEORY OF LEAST SQUARES BALANCING PROCEDURE
The Least Squares balancing procedure differs from the Exact Point-Speed
balancing procedure only by virtue of one significant addition to the
latter: a calculation of the minimized sum of the squares of residual'
amplitudes for a 'nonsquare' matrix of influence coefficients.
The application of the Influence Coefficient Method to the balancing of

flexible rotors was described in detail in Reference (1). Also shown in
Reference (1) (page 9) was the square matrix requirement for solution of the
equation
[w_ }=[] .' [U }

K p
where
w = rotor amplitude in rotating coordinates
K.
cn = influence coefficients
U = unbalance moments in plane p
Only where the number of measurements (v =.number of speeds x number of

sensors) is equal to the number of balancing planes (n) can {w } be made
zero. The method thus was called the "Exact Point-Speed" procedure in
References (1) and (2).
A discussion of the relationships of the Exact Point-Speed balancing proce-

dure (square matrix, v=n) to the Least Squares balancing procedure (where
v > n) is given in Reference (3), Appendix A.
The computer program implementing the Least Squares balancing procedure

contains substantially the same features for increased experimental accuracy
and convenience which are incorporated in the Exact Point-Speed computer pro-
gram described in Reference (1). These features are as follows:
1. A provision to read instrumentation calibration factors for amplitude

and phase angle measurements directly into the program. This feature
eliminates the need for manual conversion of instrumentation output
voltages, into displacement and phase angle units.
2. A provision to include phase angle off-set. Such a. feature allows for a

non-zero angle between the reference axial plane and the plane(s) con-
taining the trial weight holes. Thus, the calculated angular locations
for the balancing correction weights are relative to the actual trial
weight holes in each plane, decreasing chances for error. This feature
was' extensively :used: for 'all-.:the- correction: weightf calculations ./ ,
3. A provision for specifying shaft out-of-roundness at the measuring loca-

tions. Subtraction of the synchronous harmonic of shaft out-of-roundness
from displacement transducer signals at the measuring stations may well
make the difference between a rotor that can be successfully balanced
and one that cannot. Such a correction becomes increasingly important
as the ratio of shaft out-of-roundness to unbalance displacement ampli-
tude increases. This feature was investigated in the course of the
experiments described in this report.
4. Provisions for making trial weight runs with the weight placed first in
one (specified) radial position in each trial weight plane, and then
placed 180 opposite from the original position in the same axial plane.
Trial weight runs with the weight placed first in one location and then
180 away can yield significant increases in experimental accuracy.
This is because the averaging of two amplitude vectors obtained by
separate and opposing trial weight placements acts to reduce the ex-
perimental error. All of the experimental results documented in this
report were obtained by means of this technique. A cursory examination
of the effect of omitting either one of the trial weight data sets (data
for either 0 or 180) is given in this report.
A description of the experimental procedure by which the Influence Coefficient

balancing method is implemented may be found in Appendix A.
FLEXIBLE ROTOR BALANCING TEST APPARATUS
The basic mechanical apparatus used for the herein-described balancing tests
had originally been designed and built for turbulent journal bearing tests and
for rotor unbalance response measurements. It had recently been used for bal-
ancing tests by. the Exact Point-Speed procedure (Reference 1). Since it was
not.modified for' the tests described herein, the results of these tests may be
readily compared with those reported in Reference 1. The system was specifi-
cally designed to amplify the effects of rotor unbalance, thus providing an
excellent vehicle for experimental rotor balancing tests.
Test Rotor Configuration.- Three-Mass Version
The three-mass test rotor shown in Figure la was 41 inches (104 cm) long and
had a nominal bearing diameter of 2.500 inches (63.5 mm). The rotor [2]* was
basically symmetrical about its mid-point and had a .three-mass configuration
with the two end masses [3] overhung from each of the journal bearings. The
center span between bearings was 25 inches (63.5 cm).
The center mass, 6 inches (152.4mm) in diameter by 6 inches (152.4mm) long,

was integral with the shaft. The detachable end masses [3], also 6 inches
(152.4 mm) in diameter but only 3 inches (76.2 mm) long, were shrunk onto the
shaft and secured by locknuts [33]. The weight of the center mass, exclusive
of the 2.5-inch (63.5 mm) diameter shaft section, was 36 pounds (16.3 kg);
that of each end mass, 19 pounds (8.6 kg). Total rotor weight was 126
pounds (57 kg). Rotor material was nitrided Nitralloy 135 (modified).
The test rotor was in the above described configuration for all of the previ-
ously conducted tests which were reported in Reference 1. During some of the
tests reported herein, the rotor configuration was changed through removal of
an end mass, as described below.
Test Rotor Configuration - Two-Mass Version
In its altered form (Figure Ib) the rotor had one steel end mass-removed and
replaced by a lightweight aluminum disc. The aluminum disc weighed only 2.5
pounds (1.13 kg) and the complete rotor in this configuration weighed 109.5
pounds (49.7 kg).
The aluminum disc, which replaced the steel end mass opposite the drive end
for some of the tests, had a similar though not identical arrangement of tapped
holes for balancing weights as the steel masses had. The number of small holes
on the larger radius had been doubled and a complete second set of large holes
0/8-16 thread) was provided on a smaller radius of 1.75 inch (44.4 mm).
In this section, numbers in brackets refer to detail part numbers in

Figure 1.
Figure:2 shows .a photograph of.the aluminum end disc installed on the rotor
in the Flexible-Rotor Balancing Test Rig.
Features Common to Both;Rotors Three and Two-Mass Versions
The test rotor was equipped with a row of axial, tapped holes [34,35] on each
side of each mass. The tapped holes, 15 degrees apart, were on a.2.625-inch
(66..7 mm) radius from the center of the shaft. The holes contained 10-32
threads, except for two opposing 3/8-16 threaded holes in each set which were
used for trial weight placement. The large and the small holes were in-line
in all three rotor masses.
.One of the end discs was equipped on one-half of its outer diameter with a
narrow (1/4-inch; 6.3 mm) reflective foil. The other half of the circumfer-:
ence of the disc was painted dull black. The circumferential mid-point posi-
tion on the reflective strip was the reference point on the rotor from which
the angles for maximum dynamic displacement at the other rotor stations were
measured (phase angles).
The reflective segment extended between the two large trial weight holes, which
were arbitrarily marked zero degrees and 180 degrees, as shown in .Figure 3.
Consequently, the reference point (the mid-point of the reflective strip) actu-
ally led the zero degree position marked on the disk by 90 degrees. This re-
quired that 90 degrees be subtracted Lfrom<.all'phase-:anglecmeasurementsV.which was
equivalent to making the reference position and the zero degree position on
the rotor coincident. (The same result could have been obtained by rotating
.the reflective strip on the disk, until it. covered the arc 90-0=270 degrees).
The test rig setup is shown in Figure 4, and the relationship among the refer-
ence mark, the trial weight locations, and the angular markings on the rotor
is shown in Figure 3.
Tes.t' Rotor Support Bearings
The tes.t rotor was radially supported by two identical tilting-pad type journal
bearings, shown in Figures;5 and 6. Each of the bearings consisted of four
radially rigid pads [6] ,, with each pad extending over an 80 degree arc and
with'a pivot position of 44 degrees (55 percent) from the leading edge. The
pivot configuration was that of a fixed sphere (integral with the pivot [8])
in contact with a cylindrical surface. ..The ball-in-cylinder pivot geometry
allowed the pad to tilt in both the pitch and roll directions. Thus, it per-
mitted, the pads to track both translatory and conical shaft motions. The
latter capability is particularly pseful in a test machine, because it allows
the experimenter greater latitude in setting the maximum permissible orbits
without fear of contact between the shaft and the edges of the pads.
Pad length in the axial direction was 2.5 inches (63.5 mm) and the radial
clearance between each.pad (at the pivot location) and the shaft was 0.00187
inch (.0.047.5. mm) . (Calculated journal bearing fluid-film radial stiffness as
a function of rotor speed is presented and discussed below). Horizontal and
vertical radial stiffnesses are identical for the bearings, which were oriented
In this section, numbers in brackets refer to detail part numbers in

Figure 5.
in the load-between-pivots configuration.,
The lubricating fluid for the journal bearing was Dow Corning 200, with a kine-
matic viscosity of 0,65 cS at 77F (25C). The bearings were operated in a.
flooded condition with a maximum temperature rise of 10F (5.5C).
Axial positioning of the test rotor was provided by two externally-pressurized

air-lubricated thrust bearings located on both sides of the rotor center mass.
Locations of the thrust bearings are indicated in Figure 1 and in Section B-B
of Figure 5.
Mechanical Features of the Apparatus
The test machine (Figure 1) was mounted on a structural steel base weighing
approximately 3,200 pounds (1455 kg). The base was isolated from the floor by
rubber pads. (These details of the base assembly are mentioned here only for
reasons of documentation. There is no inherent requirement of either the
Exact Point-Speed procedure or the Least Squares procedure relative to the type
of machinery base used.) Bolted to the top plate of the base was an aluminum
jig plate [20] to which were fastened the individual housings [9 and 11] for
the journal and thrust bearings, and the proximity probe holders [4] which held
capacitance probes [31] used to measure motions of the end masses [3], Also
mounted to the same plate was the electric drive motor [30].
The journal bearing housings [3] were equipped with seal rings [5] on both
sides. Each of these rings had a clearance seal adjacent to the bearing hous-
ing with an -outboard annular scavenging cavity. Outside the scavenging cavity
was a labyrinth seal to restrict entry of air into the cavity. Bearing fluid
leaking into the cavity was pumped back into the sump by two separate electri-
cally-driven pumpso A positive-displacement pump driven by an air motor forced
the bearing fluid through a water-cooled heat exchanger and back into the
journal bearing housings. Journal bearing supply pressure was controlled to
ensure a flooded condition. Journal bearing temperature was measured by thermo-
couples welded to the back of the two lower pads in each bearing.
The drive motor [30] was a 30-hp, 30,000-rpm, 600-Hz, 600-volt electric motor,
powered from a variable frequency generator set. The test rotor was coupled to
the drive motor by a crowned spline coupling [14,15,16]. The teeth on the
shaft part of the coupling [15] were crowned so that the coupling could accom-
modate up to an 0.030-inch (0.76 mm) radial misalignment between the axes of
the motor and the test shaft without shaft restraint.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation required to run the test machine.consisted of .pressure gages

indicating thrust bearing air supply pressure, journal bearing fluid supply
pressure, drive motor bearing air-mist lubrication pressure, thermocouples indi-
cating journal bearing pad and bearing fluid temperature, and a speed counter
for shaft rotational speed. To assure safe rotor operation under heavy unbalance
In this section numbers in brackets refer to detail part numbers in Figure 1.

loads, vertical;- and horizontal capacitance-type proximity probes were installed
in two locations along the rotor axis for orbit indications. These orbits were
monitored during test runs through oscilloscope -observation.
The instrumentation required for acquisition of balancing data consisted of four

capacitance-type proximity probes for the measurement of vertical rotor displace-
ments and one optical probe for the identification of angular rotor positions
(phase angle). The locations of the proximity probes and the optical probe along
the rotor axis are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
A schematic of the complete data acquisition system as it was used for the flex-
ible rotor balancing tests described in this report is shown in Figure 9.
The instrumentation system used for the .balancing tests described in this report
differs from the system described in Reference 1 only in the level of automation
of the data recording system. In addition to the magnetic tape system which was
used for the plotting of simultaneously-recorded rotor displacement amplitudes
from various rotor stations, a paper printout system was added for faster and
more accurate displacement probe readouts.
In the test rig, only the vertically mounted capacitance probes were used for
balancing purposes. The selection of the vertical plane instead of the hori-
zontal plane for displacement measurements was an arbitrary decision.
At this time, no fixed rule is available for specifying a priori the required
number of measuring stations along the axis of the rotor for balancing by the
procedures investigated. In fact, this topic deserves further study. The com-
puter program for the Exact Point-Speed procedure allows the substitution of
data obtained at different speeds for data obtained at different rotorrcloca-
tions, provided that the product of the number of measuring stations and the
rotational speeds at which trial weight data are taken is equal to the number of
balancing planes in which correction weights are to be added. Balancing of the
test rotor by the Exact Point-Speed procedure was predominantly done -in three
planes. (A description of the reason which led to this development is given
under Test Results.) However, balancing of the same rotor by the Least Snuares
procedure was mostly done in four planes. Consequently, four measurement sta-
tions were always used when trial weight data was obtained. The data from each
station was recorded so that different combinations of speeds and measuring sta-
tions could be selected, as desired, for computations of correction weight values.
The fifth signal required for the balancing operation (commonly referred to as
the reference signal) was used to relate a fixed angular position on the rotor
(the equivalent of .the commonly used 'mark') to the angular position at which
maximum dynamic displacement occurred at each of the four measurement stations.
This angular relationship, called phase-angle, was obtained as follows: Half of
the circumference of one of the end masses was covered with a reflective foil
and the other half painted dull black. Each time the reflective arc passed
under an optical proximity sensor (MTI Fotonic sensor, Model KD-38) a constant
but adjustable voltage was generated. This square-wave signal was then convert-
.ed to a sine wave in a band-pass tracking filter (Vibration Instrument Company,
Tracking Analyzer 235 DS). The phase relationship between the converted refer-
ence signal and each of the displacement signals (analyzed one at a time) was
measured in a phase meter (Model 933A, also made by Vibration Instrument Company.)
Amplitude readout was monitored for proper range adjustments (signal amplifica-
tion) at the Tracking Analyzer, which provided an output level meter from 0.003
to 10 volts rms full scale, adjustable in seven steps.
Phase angle readout was visually monitored at the digital phase-angle display
provided by the phase meter.
The data acquisition system, as described above, is sufficient to conduct flexi-

ble rotor balancing. However, depending upon the mechanical charactersitics of
the rotor system, it may be important, and at the same time difficult, to obtain
amplitude data for all four probes at exactly the same rotational speed. This
may be important if either amplitudes or phase angles are sensitive to small
changes in speed, as for example, near an undamped shaft critical speed. Par-
ticular rotor drive controls, temperature effects, and damping may make it dif-
ficult to hold rotor speed constant long enough to take all required readings'^
The requirement of nearly simultaneous readings was previously -met through use
of an available seven channel tape recorder. Five phase-tied channels were used
for the four displacement signals and the .reference signal, while two direct
reading channels were used for data identification (voice and rotational speed).
By playing back the magnetic tape four times and switching from one displace-
ment signal to the next, data was obtained at nearly identical rotational speeds.
A different technical approach was pursued during the course of the tests de-
scribed herein. This approach not only permitted data acquisition from all four
probes at the same rotational speed, but also considerably reduced the cost of
the data recording system (the need for the tape recorder was removed) and im-
proved the accuracy of the data through elimination of errors inherent in vis-
ual readout of data.
The capacitance probe signals were fed into an automatic switch (Scanner, Mon-
santo Model 508A) which switched them upon command, one at a time, into the
tracking analyzer. The outputs of the tracking analyzer and the phase meter
were digitized in two digital voltmeters (Monsanto 200A) and printed sequen-
tially from all four probes by a 20-column line printer (Monsato 511A). The
printer recorded the paired amplitude and phase angle values at a rate of ap-
proximately three lines per second. Print commands were given manually whenever
rotor speed was within close limits of the preselected balancing speed. Multiple
recordings were thus made for each data point, which were later (if necessary)
averaged prior to processing in the computer.
Instrumentation calibration procedures are presented in Appendix B>
General Analysis of the Rotor-Bearing System
A basic understanding of the dynamic response characteristics of a particular

rotor to be balanced can be extremely valuable with respect to selection of both
balancing planes and measurement stations. Critical speed calculations, and
associated undamped mode shapes, will identify the number of criticals within or
close to the operating speed range of the rotor, as well as the degree of "flexi-
bility" of the rotor over the speed range. The mode shape plots can greatly
assist in the selection of balance planes, both number and location.
10
As a matter of practical preparation for the balancing process, the locations of
the proximity probes along the rotor axis should be at other than the shaft nodal
points as they occur in the vicinity of the balancing speeds. Should the probes
be at or near the nodal points, the low amplitude readings obtained may be a
source of error in the calculation.
Similar comments apply to the locations selected for balancing planes. Highest
balancing effectiveness will in general be obtained through the location of the
balancing planes at non-nodal positions along the rotor for the rotor speeds of
interest (including the effects of damping). This is because unbalances located
at such non-nodal positions are most effective in producing large amplitudes.
Quite obviously, the closer the balancing planes are to the most important un-
balances, the better will be the result of the balancing procedure.
For the flexible rotor balance tests reported herein, two test rotor configura-
tions were used. In its original configuration, the test rotor had a steel end
mass overhung from each journal bearing. After modification, one steel end mass
(opposite from the drive end) had been replaced by a lightweight aluminum disc.
For both test rotor-bearing systems, the following calculations were performed:
1. Journal bearing stiffnesses, both horizontal and vertical, as functions

of rotation speed (Curve A, Figure 10 for the three-mass rotor, and
Figure 12 for the modified two-mass rotor) .
2. Rotor critical speeds as functions of bearing stiffness (Curves B, C,

D, Figure 10 for the three-mass rotor and Figure 12 for the two-mass
rotor) .
3. Rotor undamped mode shapes at the calculated critical speeds for

vertical bearing stiffnesses of 10^ Ib/in. (1.75 x 10^ n/m) for each
bearing (Figure 11 for the three-mass rotor and Figure 13 for the
two-mass rotor) .
11
TEST RESULTS
Initial Rotor Condition Prior To All Tests
Prior to a previous test series the test rotor had been dynamically balanced
at low speeds in a commercial balancing machine. In the course of subsequent
flexible rotor balancing experiments, the same rotor was balanced in-place
until it ran with acceptably low vibration orbits over a speed range encom-
passing the first three critical speeds. Nominally, this was the balance
condition of the rotor at the start of the experiments described in this re-
port. In this condition, orbits were generally quite small (less than 0.0002
inch (0.005 mm) peak-to-peak)' for operating speeds up to 10,000 rpm. They
increased rapidly at the approach to the third critical speed at 10,960 rpm
to levels on the order of 0.0035 inch (0.089-mm) peak-to-peak3 the limit set for
passage through the resonance point. This condition was considered acceptable
as a starting point, since previous balancing experiments had indicated that a
finer initial rotor unbalance condition (prior to the deliberate addition of
unbalance weights) would be of little significance to the interpretation and
conduct of such experiments. Having a reasonably good initial level or rotor
balance was found, however, to be helpful in determining whether the first set
of calculated correction weights was of the correct order of magnitude.
Sequence of Balancing Runs
The sequence of balancing runs followed in the experiments described in this

report reflects past experience, and is aimed at the quickest, most effective
completion of the balancing effort. This approach was taken in lieu of an
extensive exploration of the numerous different avenues provided for balancing
by the computerized method. The following details will be noted from examin-
ation of the flow charts in Figures (14), (25), (31), (36) and (47):
1. The majority of attempts to utilize four balancing planes in the three-

mass rotor were unsuccessful when the Exact Point-Speed balancing proce-
dure was used. Considering all balancing experiments performed to date
on this rotor (including those reported in Reference (1), only one in
six attempts at four-plane balancing was successful. A case is considered
unsuccessful if the calculated correction weights for the end planes of
the center disc are 180 apart, very large, and nearly equal in size. While
such weights may be expected to produce a balanced rotor, it would be im-
practical and inefficient to attach such relatively large weights to a rotor
if only a very small net weight is required in the center disc and if the
required balance moments may be obtained more efficiently by addition of
weights to the end masses. The four-plane problem on this rotor was not
encountered when the Least-Squares balancing procedure was used with sets
of trial weight data taken at two or more rotational speeds. When the
amount of input data for the Least-Squares procedure computation was reduced
to the same volume as used for the Exact-Point Speed procedure calculation,
however, (one speed,- four-planes, four probes) the calculated correction
weights were identical to those calculated earlier (and too large for ap-
plication to the center disc).
12
2. The minimum number of probes used was three, with one probe allocated to
each large rotor mass. The mode shape of the test rotor at the third criti-
cal speed made it advisable to apply correction weights at the overhung
masses for most efficient balance improvements. (Reference (1) gives one
example where two-plane balancing at two rotational speeds was tried, with-
out much success.)
3. The balancing speed selected for trial weight runs with the Exact Point-
Speed balancing procedure was always as high as possible. The upper
limit of the balancing speed was determined by the limit established for
maximum rotor orbits and the size of the trial weight. After completion
of the first balancing run, with correction weights inserted in the rotor,
there usually also was an effective lower speed limit below which further
trial weight runs could not be conducted. This was because rotor orbits
(without the addition of the trial weight) frequently became too small at
one or more rotor stations for reliable phase angle measurement. For this
particular rotor-bearing system there existed only a relatively narrow
speed range within which rotor amplitudes were large enough prior to inser-
tion of trial weights and not too large with trial weights in place after
completion of the final balancing run. This was due to the sharp rise in
rotor amplitudes at the approach to the third .critical speed (first bending
critical).
4. The effect that trial weights of different sizes might have had upon
balancing effectiveness was not expressly studied in these experiments.
It has already been concluded, as indicated in the foregoing discussion
on the selection of balancing speed, that trial weight size selection
cannot be completely arbitrary for a given rotor-bearing system. Within
the limits provided by the Mechanical and Instrumental systems, the trial
weight size was kept relatively low for convenience of operation. Gen-
erally, no disadvantages arose as a result of size selection, and when-
ever a larger trial weight was used, such as for the first correction
run in the corkscrew unbalance mode, no drastic improvements were noted.
For reference, it may be noted that the typical trial weight was on the
order of five percent of the total maximum deliberate unbalance weights
added to the rotor.
5. All trial weight runs were performed with the trial weight placed first
at the zero degree location and then, for a second run, 180 away in the ::
same plane. The purpose behind this procedure is to obtain an improvement
in experimental accuracy through vectorial averaging of the measurements.-
Attempts were not made to fully evaluate the precise need for this procedure
with this test setup, or the benefits which have accrued from it. Obviously,
the need for this increased effort will decrease with increases in the
quality of measurements.
6. For the corkscrew unbalance configuration tests, and later for the conical
unbalance configuration, two independent sets of calculations were made; one
13
was based upon the Exact Point-Speed balancing procedure and the other
on the Least-Squares balancing procedure. Both sets of calculations had
common starting points, which were the measured vibrations resulting from
either the initial corkscrew unbalance configuration or the initial conical
unbalance configuration. Upon completion of the balancing by the Exact
Point Speed balancing procedure, which was signified by passage through the
bending critical speed at 10,960 rpm with acceptable rotor orbits for the
corkscrew test and reasonably low amplitudes for the conical test case, all
correction weights added in the course of this balancing effort were re-
moved from the rotor. Those weights calculated by the Least-Squares pro-
cedure from the initial rotor response data were then added. .Figure 14
indicates the sequence of events in the balancing of the rotor with initial
corkscrew unbalance by both methods. Figure 47 presents similar results
for the conical unbalance test case.-
First Test Case: Rotor With Corkscrew Unbalance
The Corkscrew Unbalance Test Case had been designed to be the most challenging
test situation which the flexible rotor balancing programs under evaluation
might face. Four unbalance weights of different magnitude were placed one in
each rotor end disk and one each at the two faces of the center mass. They
were angularly 90 apart from each other, progressing in a corkscrew fashion
from end to end of the rotor. The resulting unbalance condition consisted of
static and dynamic unbalance with a corkscrew-type bending distortion. The
arrangement of the weights and their magnitude is shown in the top part of
Figure 14. At each overhung end mass, the unbalance weight was attached on the
side of the disc facing the journal bearing. Balance correction weights were
applied to the outboard side of the end disk, and for some correction runs, at
only one of the two sides of the center mass. A realistic situation was thus
provided in which balancing planes and unbalance locations did not coincide.
The initial rotor amplitudes for the speed range from 3,000 to 10,000 rpm are
recorded as curves 'A' in Figures 15 through 19, which present amplitude data
for probe locations 1, 2,3 and 4 as shown in Figure 7. For rotor stations 1
through 3, only the vertical rotor amplitudes are shown, while for station 4
the vertical and sometimes also the horizontal amplitudes are included as sep-
arate plots. No balancing operations were performed using the horizontal vibra-
tion measurements. All correction weight calculations were based on vertical
rotor amplitude measurements.
Test results for rotor with corkscrew unbalanceBalanced by Exact Point-Speed

balancing procedure. The effectiveness of the balancing effort was determined
and quantified in terms of rotor orbit reduction. For quick visual inspection
of rotor orbit sizes over the full rotor speed range, continous plots were made.
These plots were obtained simultaneously for all rotor stations by recordings
made on magnetic tape and later individual playback.
Figures 15 through 19 contain the amplitude plots for the test rotor at the
four designated rotor stations. The rotor balance improvements achieved by
14
successive balancing runs follow the previously observed pattern found in
Reference 1: A very drastic reduction of rotor unbalance after the first bal-
ancing run is followed by much more gradual improvements during successive
runs. Occasionally there may even occur an increase in rotor orbit size at
some rotor stations over all or part of the speed range previously covered.
These shifts in rotor unbalance distribution sometimes seem to be necessary
if the rotor is to pass through the third critical speed without excessive
bending. An example of worsening of rotor balance at one station coupled with
a significant overall improvement of rotor balance may be seen in the results
of the third balancing runs (curves D) in Figures 15 through 19. At stations
1, 3 and 4 the vertical amplitudes improved while at station 2 larger ampli-
tudes were observed. However, the overall improvement of rotor balance was
sufficient to permit passage through the third critical speed with sufficiently
small orbits. At this point, it may be worthwhile to recall the speeds at
which the trial weight data were taken (see Figure 14); From curve A to curve
B (as designated in Figures 15 through 19); 9,870 rpm, from B to G; 10,670
rpm, and from C to D; 10,830 rpm. There were marked improvements in rotor,
amplitudes in the speed range to the approach of the third critical speed as
the balancing speed moved upward and finally approached the critical speed.
For numerical comparison of rotor amplitudes before and after each successive
balancing run, rotor orbits at 6,000, 9,000 and 10,670 rpm have been tabulated,
together with a calculation of the percentage improvements obtained. Table I
gives a listing of these values for the Corkscrew Unbalance Test Case and bal-
ancing by the Exact Point-Speed balancing procedure.
&
The total combined percent improvement" at 6,000 and 9,000 rpm is only 77.4
percent, which is somewhat lower than previously obtained values when balancing
the same rotor under similar conditions, but with different unbalance configu-
rations (Reference 1). However, the improvement at 9,000 rpm was considerably
better than at 6,000 rpm (86.3 percent versus 68,5 percent) and the improve-
ment at 10,670 rpm for the last two runs was a respectable 81.1 percent. This
emphasis on higher improvements at higher rotor speeds explains why the test
rotor successfully passed the third critical speed despite the relatively low
77.4 percent improvement at the 6,000 and 9,000 rpm 'test' points.
Test results for rotor with corkscrew unbalanceBalanced by Least-Squares

balane ing procedure. Rotor vibration amplitude plots which were obtained
during balancing; efforts with the test rotor first unbalanced with a corkscrew
unbalance arrangement and then balanced by the" Least~Squares balancing proce.-l
dure, are shown in Figures 20 through 24. Curves A, which represent the initial
unbalance condition are identical to curves A in Figures 15 through 19, because
both cases were begun with the same initial unbalance weight combination. The
Least-Squares results, curves B through E in Figures 20 through 24, have a
distinctly different appearance than those obtained by the Exact Point-Speed
Total combined improvement relates to the average improvement for all four
measurement stations on the rotor. Values for total combined percent improve-
ment as measured at rotor speeds of either 6,000S 9S000 or 10,670 rpm, or as
combined values for all rotor speeds at whirl measurements were taken, are
shown in Table VII.
15
Z
tr~ C
r-. tr\ r~- CJ^ <f CM
J S-
< u vo o *j m
If
r*4 (f) tS* ^f
00 vO ^ 00
O Q OS
H co o 00 ^-- CO CO
O Z
DO M in o \D o O 0 O -t
OH O CM m -J CM i CM m CM ~3"
U Z
OS U <
^ ^
C ^ m <r CO CO ^ vD
0 S S rt ^ O O OO O
0
Q Si c. ' co m <t CM CM in m m tn m <j
OS
t-i o z "i
OS M HI
e
*3
< 3 = ^c m
r-
o
in
o m
r-< r^
o o m m o
o
o
o
o
m
o
v>
S a;j -J -J O CM CM
z 5
0 0 OS
M Z
(U H CM O CM
 CO O"*
0) ^ p os i CJ CM CM >> <f CM m ô <t in o t^- vo
a. z H
1 Z0 E
CM U Z
fn i
4J OS a oH
o1 H Z 3
O
C
1-1 o
01 <J U
C O
o
o
o
o m
m r^
o
i <
m o
CM m
o
vo
o o o sm
O I ^^ CM ' CM m CM
ca 3 a
c
0) o o
I
CO 8 g
(U ti 0 H OS )-< OJ
4J ft) HI W J=
5
OH
H -J O
L> Z (** CM ^? <O
4-1 iJ
D O HI
Q HO ^j o co in O 00 CM ~tf
U Z
g3
a
0) & Q <
<u ffl
o
09 CM
I-I CD c ^-< ^-t m r- CM CM
PQ 2 'o CO 0% r-J CO r- f^ oo CM
09
PQ H OS Zu m i i r- \o CM O r- 00 oo IA o m
CO CM CM CM <fr
-i 0 Z
Z 0
OS M H
ij CJ H
H Z <
S5 ^ c o
in
m o
r^- oo in
o o o
' m
o m
-^ CM
in O O O
23 n
3 3
P. <C
E d)
4-t
OJ
*J
QJ
4-t
OJ
4J
m z
0 0
2: z
0 0
z
u c in in in in m o o o
o o H !* r- CM CM r^. m m o J flj Q) (1)
m m m O CO CO CO CO
o w 3 -~l -^ CM
Ed O
m.w
0 H -^ CM m <t i CM m <t ' CM m ^d"
oi <:
0- H
Cd Q 0 o 0
o o
8 W
Ed
O FU

Q
M
o o
n
05 CO \> a. o
16
procedure. The amplitude reductions in the sp.eed range near the critical speed
at 10,960 rpm are not as sharp after Least-Squares balancing as those observed
after Exact Point-Speed balancing. A relatively gradual and early increase in
rotor vibration amplitude is observed at the approach to the critical speed
in Figures 20 through 24, which show the results of the first two balancing
runs and of the fourth. To avoid cluttering of the graphs a third run which
yielded results that fell between those of run C and run E, is not shown. The
fourth and last run (E) was, however, based upon its predecessor (D) which is
therefore included in the tabulation of results in Table II.
Inspection of the rotor vibration amplitude plots obtained from the balancing
runs conducted with the aid of the Least-Squares procedure indicates somewhat
less successful performance than obtained through balancing by the Exact Point-
Speed procedure. Successful balancing is defined here as overall vibration
amplitude reduction including passage through,the third critical speed. The
precise reason for this result is not immediately clear. However, the Least-
Squares procedure is known to be a "compromise" procedure which purposely
permits vibration amplitudes at some locations to be larger than those which
would have been attained by the Exact Point-Speed procedure as the price for
attaining lower vibrations for all measurement locations throughout the speed
range. Especially interesting are the relatively small vibration amplitude
reductions obtained by the first balancing run. The lesser effectiveness of
the subsequent runs could be explained by the very nature of the Least-Squares
procedure which is designed to accept trial weight data over the whole speed
range of the rotor. If the rotor exhibits very low initial amplitude over a
good part of the speed range, as was the case after the final balancing run,
it actually becomes disadvantageous to include that part of the speed range in
the data taking process. This is because the low amplitudes may be below the
sensitivity limits of some of the instruments, and thus introduce errors into
the data .
Inspection of the rotor amplitude improvements in Table II, for 6,000 and 9,000
rpm reveals a very respectible improvement of 88.4 percent. The answer to the
question as to why the rotor did not pass successfully through the third
critical speed can be found in the amplitude improvement at 10S670 rpm, which
totals only 64.6 percent. This number may be compared to the 81.1 percent for
the amplitude improvement at 10,670 rpm obtained after balancing by the Exact
Point-Speed procedure. It must not be eompareds howevers to the percentage
figures given for 6S000 and 9,000 rpm, because the base for the latter two was
the initial rotor condition,, while the improvement at 10,670 rpm is based upon
amplitudes as they existed after the first balancing run. For the first
balancing run, amplitude reductions could not be calculated because the rotor
was not run up to 10,670 rpm in the initial condition prior to any balancing.
This is because with the corkscrew unbalance weights in place, rotor amplitudes
at 10,670 rpm would have exceeded safe rotor operating limits.
Second Test Case; Rotor With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance
The second test case was planned as a sequel to an identical test case (Case
II) in Reference 1. There, the test rotor with an in-line., in-phase unbalance
configuration was balanced by the Exact Point-Speed balancing procedure. This
17
** H p- P-. n m Ô 00 ^D P"
u"\ so CM, o
sl
H a
ON CO O% OO
en CM ^- *-
igl
M H
H <t O
U 2 r- en O ON O y-N ~J 1^ CO O en -3-
Q H U >> en O CM o in m ^ eg m oo o\
w ; * <n 0\ sj u"> co r-. -3- r^ vo r- n
c en- P^ . m QO o <j ^ -* CM en IA
zS o vO CM vO O ON cM m <t m m en -^j-
BALANCING Rl
_LCALCULATION y
o ^H o m
AFTER 4th
O ^^ r- CM <) CT\ en ô in
H CM
E
C in o m o m in o tn m tn o O
H CM "" CN O r- oo O r- r^ CM m O
C*J CM -I ^ m u"i CM O
^
O Q 0
H 0!
H en o
0 Z >-s O vO o o en m r- en -g-
0 H5 O IT, cxi r^- m o vo o r-i r- en en
W 2 CM r^ CM " t
OS U <
fi Q 5
(3
0)
Vi
a Z o
m C vD O in CTi ^ \O CM CM fNi -* r^.
to T>
t** ^ f\ OO oo r- *n \> ON -' CM C4
(CALCULATION 1
BALANCING Rl
n o
AFTER 3RD
0) O ^-( \) CO en o <^ r- <t oo o* >~>

H tn <n CM <j-
o U E

o
O
O
O O o
en co
r-* m in
oo O
O U co i? r- f^. <t in CM CM CM CM en CM
a
K W<
m co D ^
so 0)
(X
ri Q <
a:
o o> 8 C vO f^. r- \f\ OO <f vO CM m r^ m CM

SS o r^- CN <T CM O m ^ vo <fr CM \O <&
BALANCING Rl
jr acu
(CALCULATION /
u
AFTER 2ND
0) H
O i ^ oo in CM o p^ <t 1-1 en r^
4-1 r-l
<t <t en *
E
o H
3
I
M O
>O
 i^ vD OO CM CO ^ 4J
K|
S W
a 3
u
v
e
u a.
e
-H M
E
z Hi M O
r^ <t ^ CM CM co m CM ""> O
3 st D -^ oo -' -o m o r^ tn m ^ oo "^ O.VO
E- ^~
AFTER 1
(CALCULATION
U OJ O
BALANCING
i^ in in o
m o o o m o o o m o o o
3 CM en oo o r*- o o m P-. m o o
^ CN CM Cn en CM m CM m CM o m
H CM CM CM CM
1 ) \o
01 m en
n CM o
-j-
oo
^
ejt
^ <j-
in en
ROTOR AMPLITl
BEFORE BALANC
u ON ^( i> n
-H ^ * CM CM <t ' m OJ O V ej
J U t-t t-3
0 0 O O
2= Z Z 2
ey o) cj (u
in in in m" m o o o o cj GJ <u
i-l f* r*- CM CM p^ in m o W C/J CO tO
m en m o i-H vo ^ -J
a. i -< ' CM
u0
OH
g
CO
18 o o o
SPEED
ROTOR
io 0
o
o
r^
vo
vO CT* o
section describes the balancing of the same rotor, with an identical initial
unbalance condition, by the Least-Squares procedure.
Four unbalancing masses of 0.37 oz-in. (26.64 gr-cm) each were added to the
rotor after removal of all unbalance and correction weights previously applied
for the first test case. The !angular position of the unbalance weights was
195. (See Figure 3 for angular rotor location and Figure 25 for a schematic
of the unbalance distribution on the rotor for this test case.)
Rotor amplitudes resulting from this unbalance addition are shown in Figures
26 through 30S curves A. The amplitude curves (together with phase angle
measurements which are not shown) indicate the rotor to be orbiting in what
is essentially a cylindrical mode (with some rotor bending) in the frequency
range between 5,000 and 10,000 rpm. The rotor orbits, as recorded in Figures
26 through 30, are somewhat smaller than those shown in Reference 1 for
nearly identical unbalance conditions. The sequence of balancing runs in the
Third Test Case is shown in Figure 25.
Test results for rotor in-line, in-phase unbalanceBalanced by Least-Squares

procedure. For this test case, balancing by the Least-Squares procedure led
to an astonishingly rapid improvement in rotor balance. After only two trial
weight runs, rotor amplitudes at 6,000 and 9,000 rpm had decreased by about
94 percent and the rotor passed successfully through the third critical speed.
Maximum amplitudes at the third critical speed were below 0.003 inch (0.076
mm). See Figures 26 through 30 for rotor amplitude curves and Table III for
numerical amplitude values at the selected speeds of 6,000, 93000 and 10,670
rpm.
The quick success of the balancing effort utilizing the Least-Squares proce-
dure stands in stark contrast to the successively smaller improvements for
each balancing run previously obtained by the Exact Point-Speed procedure
(Reference 1).
Third Test Case; Rotor With In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance
For the third test case investigated, the intentionally-added unbalance

weights from the second test case were shifted in both end masses by 180.
All previously added correction weights were removed. The resultant unbal-
ance configuration was thus nearly identical to that of Test Case III in
Reference 1. The sequel described here was planned to yield yet another com-
parison between the balancing effectiveness of the Exact Point-Speed procedure
applied in Reference 1 and the Least-Squares procedure used here.
The balancing runs for the Third Test Case were performed in the sequence
shown in Figure 31. The second trial weight run (number 10), which was based
upon initial rotor amplitudes B in Figures 32 through 35, was conducted at the
relatively high and closely-spaced speeds of 10,670 and 10,780 rpm. At the
lower rotational speeds, successful data taking was impeded by low amplitudes.
Test results for rotor with in-line, out-of-phase unbalanceBalanced by the

Least-Squares procedure. The balancing effort applied to the test rotor with
19
2
S-S O
H co in co oo r~ m m
rJ H . .
< o ON m CM r- ON \o ri o
H P ON OO ON ON ON OO ON O
0 Q I1
H W
PS
2
2 D
O Q PS
H4 ^
H CM O
O 2 00 O CO CM vo in vo O
.
CO -H.
.
C
P OH o
Q HO vo <j~ "' r^- r^ vo oo o r-H CO I-- O
M 2 ON <t co m ON m CM o oo oo m o
PS W < ii ti
e
H
x-s
C in co ON vo CM oo r^
2
>-)
10
~U_
0 CM co r-~ r~ II O r1 m m o . C
4-1 3
Q PS CJ o m CM O o m co o CM <fr <} O
2 2 H <4-l
CM O O E 0 60
2 M C
pS M H 01 -H
W 0 < 03 O
H 2 t-3
3 C
C o o o o m o m o o o o o co co
Ol < J 0 H O CM O OO VD 0 r-i
CO Ol CM r-l CM r-H ii ii i< 01 CO
O
o
c 01
S3
o
_,_ pQ rO
CO rH o
4-1 3 CO c
TD 6CCNJ
03
w
Ol
H
01
O
o g. H
rH 01
O fr3 2 P* J3
T3 rH
H O H PS
13 Ol PH hJ
O CO H MO rH
O CO 03 S 0 2 VO CM OO ON ON ON r1 ON 01
Ol ~1 PO M
CO rH "^ OH O vO -3" CO ^ VO 00 OO CO Ol
CO W 2 r^ r1^ CO ON OO VO OO ON J3
c 3 PS
M
>- s !
M
0
M
CO C -T*
H 4J
Ol C
c c CO O 3
01 CO 0)
Ol
w ^^ 4-1 E
O) 'c r^ CM vo r^ CO OO . <J" <t co o CM m 4-1 a
b &
rH PQ
PH
O
H
s u*"* O
H PS ~"~ O
M
co
r^
m O r~
ON vH^ ii
co
m
vo
r-i
11
-3" in
<f CM
co
CO
co m o
r^~ ON ON rH O
0. J3 1
H r-l CM r-l 0) 1-^
E 4J r-l O O E Q. VD
M -H O) 2 M
o pS M H O). O
01 c !W
PH O <G . a r-i
o rH CO H 2 rJ 3
c O r-l C O m O O o
ri
o m o
vo r^ o
m m m o 4J O
CO 4-1 CO ^ r-3 O H r-H F"^ VO 1^^ CM i* r^ m
r-H O PQ <3 rJ CO CO' i1 CM v^ ^H r-H m o co r^
CO PS pQ ^C d. ii CL a.
PQ o E 3
CO
E 3
3 ,H
o
W 2 C m co ON ON x^ O^ \Q rt rH >,
Q M 0 vO 00 r-l CM vD LO <j" O^ X r-l
P 0 IH r 1 r-H r-l r-H CO r-H
H 2 o CO VD VD <) 0 r~! r~! M' E CO
H CO CO CO CO ^~ co co ~J" Ol 0) Ol Ol 3
,1 j_3 E 4-1 4-1 4J 4J Ol 4-1
PH "^3 O O O O J3 O
S PQ 2 2 2 2 4J CO
w .
Ol Ol Ol Ol 03 4-1
PS PS c m o m o o o m o Ol Ol Ol Ol CO O
0 0 1-1 CM m CM m O oo r--1 m CO CO CO CO 3 C
H Fn co -d' -d" co vO >^ ^d vO
O W n ii ii *i ii 11 i1 i1 r-l 03 VI
PS PQ Ol CO
.C S
o
(3 60
r-l -H
W O O rH
PQ M ,H
0 H r-l CM CO <f r-l CM CO <t r-H CM CO -3" O 4-1
PS < r-(
PH H E
CO
O
o o)
o j=
PS Q 0 0 o CO 4-1
O W E o O
H W CL 0 0 VO
O PH rH * f. ft
PS CO vO ON O
I1
O
2
20
in-line, out-of-phase unbalance was very successful. Only two trial weight
runs were required to reduce rotor amplitudes to levels low enough for passage
through the third critical speed with acceptable (less than 0.003 in. or 0.076
mm) maximum rotor excursions,
Figures 32 through 35 show plots of rotor amplitudes for the in-line, out-of-
phase test case. Curves A represent the initial rotor condition before bal-
ancing, and curves B and C show the reduced rotor amplitudes resulting from
the first and second successive balancing runs, respectively. The first cor-
rection run reduced rotor amplitudes at 9,000 rpm rotor speed by nearly 95
percent, while the next run produced another 2.3 percent reduction. This
very successful performance of the Least-Squares procedure was better than
what previously had been achieved for the same test configuration by the
Exact Point-Speed procedure (Reference 1). With the Exact Point-Speed pro-
cedure, a total of three correction runs were necessary because the second
and third runs reduced rotor amplitudes only by 1.6 and 1.1 percent,
respectively, based upon initial rotor amplitudes. While the difference
between a 1.6 percent and a 2.3 percent reduction may appear slight, it
appears to affect significantly the ability of the rotor to pass through the
third critical speed.
Balancing results achieved by the Least-Squares procedure for the in-line,

out-of-phase test case are shown in Table IV. There, rotor amplitudes are
tabulated for each rotor station, and amplitude reduction percentages are
given for each reduction, based upon the results of the previous correction
run. Total amplitude reduction percentages, based upon the initial rotor
amplitudes are also given,
Fourth Test Case; Two-Mass Rotor with Conical Unbalance
The designation 'Conical Unbalance' is used in this report to describe the

test rotor with one steel end mass replaced by a light aluminum disc and un-
balance weights added to the remaining end mass and center mass (Figure 36) .
This purposely creates conical rotor centerline motions. Amplitude and phase
angle plots (Figures 37 through 41 and Figures 42 through 46, respectively)
indicate that at low speeds the rotor was orbiting in a conical mode with the
apex of the cone intersecting the rotor centerline in the vicinity of the
journal bearing furthest from the drive motor (that is, closest to the end at
which the steel end mass had been replaced by the smaller aluminum disc).
At higher speeds the rotor mode shapes differ considerably from those of the
three-mass rotor. At the second critical speed there is practically no rotor
damping from the journal bearing adjacent to the overhung mass and appreciably
more rotor bending than for the three mass rotor. The third critical occurs
now at a higher rotational speed (assuming unchanged bearing stiffness).
There is now some bearing damping for the light end of the rotor, and conse-
quently a much more gradual increase in rotor amplitudes may be expected
when approaching the third critical speed.
In the conical configuration, the rotor was balanced first by the Exact Point-
Speed procedure and subsequently, after removal of all balance correction
21
a
8-2 0
H
. i r-t
CM o n <j- CM ^- O CM
< 0 ON r-^ vt n ON <J- vO OO

H S OO t^ ON 00 ON ON ON ON
0 0
H W
05
Z c
2 D o
O Q Pd
M 2
H CM O CO
U
I
2/-\ L_|
O CM O ON <) in O r^ o o \o ii 4-1
rl
Q H CJ
W 2
O
VD
VD
n
O
m m
OO n
OO
o
-*
m \o
CM i1
OO <!" VO ^D E
OO OO vO OO
05 W <
-B| tn
H
S-i
/N H-l
I1 c l~ i-l i-l O> co r^ O r^ i-l VO <t i-H 0 60
2 "i O CM OO O CO vD 1-1 ON CM 00 O sj- OO C
01 -i-l
Q OS O -4 m i-i o O m i i I-H co <r <f co tn o
2 2 H 3 C
CM O O s co eg
2 M O i-4
PC! M H CU CO
01
o
B 3
py < 3 c o o o m m m m o o o m o
PQ J3
O
Q)
co
co
c
co
ii
^ 5<3 r-l
i
m m
r-i
~d- n CM CM r^
<
m m
^-1
vo
^-1
r^ in
,| ,_|
C
W> CM
H
O CO >-J 0)
-D 3 N_x J3
C o co J-J 4-1
;=> Ol
. ROTOR AMPLITUDE
(11 CJ
H 01 o 2
CO S-i 2 3
CO PM 0 H p< CU M-l
M co J3 CO
PM co H .-1 O
01 O 2 O ON vO vO ON m r^ oo
14-1 SJ 2 O r-1
O CO Q H CJ n ro oo ON -d" CM -J- r~ i-l 4-1
W 2 r^ ^D oo m ON ON ON ON
cr PS W < T3 D
3 co 01
O i &S B <3 4J S
4-1 4-1 PQ 4-1 Q,
C CO
0) 01 CO M
c CU < >-l O
Ol
w X^ Pk O c r r^ co *> '-t CO <t CM m co o Q-vO
o i 2 m o i-l ON O 1-1 oo co m m r^ ^ co co M
S-i 0) O
OH
T3
8 H pti
w 2
CJ
i-l
ro in CM CM co m CM ii ii
CO
m
CM
co r^
i-l CM
"O .-I
D
cu ii -i O O 6 4J O
o <5 2 M H 4-1
Ol 03 M H i I
a. a.
AFTE
BALANC
(CALCULA
CJ CO PH
c TI E 3
CO CO C m m o un 0 0 0 O o o m m CO
pq H CM ro oo oo m ii o vo m o CM r^-
.-I CM i' CM i-l CM o m o 6 3
i ii ii f-i
O 3
M 2 C OO -! OO CO ON CM CM OO 01 4J
Q M o \o m i>. n CM 1-1 o m JZ CJ
4-1 CO
H 2 o ii VD i m <f --I r~ oo
H 1-1 1-1 1-1 <u <u <u <u CO 4-1
33 S
1^- 1^ <f VO
4J
o
4-J
o
J-l
o
J-J
o
CO
3 C
O
3 2 2 2 2
ROTOR A
co co
BEFORE
QJ 0) 0) 0) Ol co
c o o o o in o m o (U 0) 0) 
H CO
STATION
E cu
PROBE
4-1
o
.-i CM en <) i' CM co ~d- r-< CM CO <T O CU
O 4=
CO 4-1
SPEED
0 0
ROTOR
0
0 o r^
Q. 0 0 vO
H M s ri O
ô ON 0
r-H
2
22
weights,, by the Least-Squares procedure. In fact, this case should yield
one of the best comparisons between the two balancing methods, because both
calculations were made from the same trial weight data. For the Exact Point-
Speed procedure, only trial weight data obtained at 9,370 rpm was used, while
the Least-Squares procedure utilized additional trial weight data taken at
4,500, 6,290 and 8,290 rpm. Each set of data,, comprising four rotational
speeds, was obtained in a continuous series.
Based upon earlier experience, correction weights were calculated by the

Exact Point-Speed procedure for three rotor planes only. In the interest of
a closer comparison between calculation methods, the same three rotor planes
were utilized for correction weight calculations by the Least-Squares proce-
dure. However, for the Least-Squares calculations trial weight data from
all four probes were used. (Due to the square matrix requirement, the Exact
Point-Speed procedure can only accept readings from, three probes when three-
plane balancing is used).
The unbalance weights were placed on those sides of the end discs that faced
the journal bearings. This case, therefore, was the only experimental case
in which none of the unbalance planes coincided wit|i any of the balancing
planes.
Test results for two-mass rotor with conical unbalance. Rotor vibration
amplitudes which resulted from balancing by the Exact Point-Speed and Least-
Squares procedures are shown graphically as curves B and C, respectively in
Figures 37 through 41. Curves A depict the initial rotor amplitudes produced
by the intentionally-added unbalance weights, located as shown in Figure 36.
Tables V and VI present numerical values for vibration level improvements at
6,000, 9,000 and 10,670 rpm for the Exact Point-Speed and Least-Squares
methods, respectively.
The absence of a sharply defined vibration resonance peak for this rotor con-
figuration is probably the explanation for the excellent balancing results
obtained; just one single balancing run was required to bring rotor amplitudes
down to levels that are considered acceptable. The results obtained by the
Exact Point-Speed procedure are quite comparable to those achieved by the
Least-Squares procedure, as may be observed in Figures 37 through 41.
Upon comparison of the calculated percentages..of rotor orbit reductions

achieved by the Least-Squares procedure (Table VI) with those obtained by the
Exact Point-Speed procedure (Table V) , it may be noted that slightly better
results (larger reductions) were achieved by the latter procedure.
Two-Mass Rotor With Large Out-Of-Roundness At One Probe Location
The first (and major) series of out-of-roundness tests was conducted on the
test rotor with one lightweight aluminum disc substituted for one of the
heavier steel end masses. This configuration was identical to that used
during the conical unbalance test described before, with one exception: the
outer diameter of the aluminum disc was intentionally machined out-of-round.
23
Z
Z >
0 H PS
M CO
H r^ CJ
U Z oo in r^> c*si co r-~ O o <f r-l 0 0
CD O i'
OHO oo oo ^d" r^ en Os CM O CM O 00 ^
W ,Z vo r^ ON o^ CO OO OS O Os OS Os Os
B-S Q <
M
d- CM r~ en CM <J- O vO Ô vt
C Z o CM m m CM os m m o en o r^ v
O O
cu H PS Z o in CM ri it en r-i CM o en CM O <f
r-l r-l CO r-l
CO 3 r-l O Z s
O a Z 0
1-1 0) PS M M
[TUBES
C o W 0 H
O o H Z <
CJ rJ
c
[T[ Ê ^^
PH m o o o m o o o o in o in
x; <J O H o o vo in in vo o en O en r^
4-1
r-i *o ,j M rJ CM r-l r-l r-l r-l r-l i1
cu
^
M
o
QJ
a.
CO
1
i CJ
Jt PS
o c o
>
PL)
&
(O
rH
0
a.
s
PS
rJ CO !*! O
m co 4_J uz c en ri r^ oo in in in os en os vo CN
^c
H
si
O
0
CO
s
Sf"
Pn
*t r ^
o
r-l
vo oo in o CM <> Is* OO
en vo r~- o
X HZ 0 \O r-4 <X> -3 ^ OS i1 CO
J5 w 3 H rI r1 CM en CM en <f <t" CM en o
r-l
O
CU
_r;
H
8
S rn
3 e
CM c m m m m m o o m o in m m
4-1 CQ o o -H in VD CM r^ m oo m CM ii in r^ r^
C _j_ vo <t -! r- os en CM os r^ O <] en
CD
E
a o w r-l r-l i1 r-l r-l i1 r^ CM
cu pS PQ
0) o
^> c
o eo
r-l r1
CL eo
cq
Z
^
cu w o
U PQ H^
C 0 H r-i CM en <t r-l CM en <)- r-i CM en <t
eo PS "^
PM H
CO
PS Q 0 O O
O W E o 0 r^
H W a. 0 O VD
O Pw t-i rt % n
PS co V> Os O
r-l
24
53
O H Pd
M CO
H r-l CJ
0i j 53
. i vO vO Ô cO OO CM O O r^* o^ *^ ^j
j O M
Q H CJ CM O l~- ro . co ' in v^ o CO Ô ' *^ *"^
fvi Jg; r** in oo o^ . oo m oo o oo in oo ON
2 w< - ' i
P rJ
B-S Q <
QJ
O
c
CO
O
CO vQ
c r^* <} in <J- CO O <f 1-1 m oo m
c 53 o m oo m o CJN Ô S^ f*"^ ri m CTV co
P P O
>^ in oo co
H C*J 53 CJ CO vO <) O 1^ r-l \O VO
11 CO H ,i
CO 0) r-l CJ 53 6
o rJ 53 0
*rH Pi H M
c T) w W O H
o cu H 53 <
CJ CJ
o H C O o o o m o m o o m m o
rJ H OO CO <) CM in vo r-* oo m r>- m
4J r-l CM 1 r-l r^ CM r-l CM -* CM CM
rJ pq ^
g CO CJ ^
cu <c
ST
M }^
O CO
U 3
M O cr H
P< CO O
i
W 93 4J
CO CO O
pq co CO C co r-i r^ oo in co in 0*1 CO & vD CM
cu M o ^D oo >n o CM r r^ oo i
'^' f^* *sf Ô
-1 jî r4
1
O H S o \o i oo m oo vO r*** f^**
33
<f <f r-l OO
0) H r-< r-l CNI <t CM r-l CO <f <f CM CO sf
r^ B e
M ^ Ej PQ
O ^
fe pq 1 W
PM c in in in in in o o in o m in m
4J T3 H m vo CM t~- m oo. m CM ri m r^ i~
C dJ H Pn V^ ^J1 11 P^ cy^ in CM c^ r^ 'O <} oo
01 o O W i . 1 r-l 14 ii i 1 i 1 1 CM
E c p3 pq
o> CO[
o CO
rJ pq
cx
01 Pd 0
o pq M
c O H r-l CM CO <J- r-l CM . CO <f r-l CM CO -J-
CO
f PH 15
CO CO
pq
P^ Q -o 0 O
O W 6 O O f^.
H W ex O on vO
*
O PM i-i *
CH CO vO CT. O
r-l
25
The measured out-of-roundness at this location, which corresponded to rotor
station (probe location) number 1, was 0.0022 in. (0.056 mm) T.I.R. or double
amplitude at an angular location on the disc of 55 (Figure 47). The out-
of-roundness was seen on the oscilloscope screen at low rotational speeds
(below 1,000 rpm)i as a nearly circular orbit 0.0022 in. (0.056 mm) in diam-
eter. As rotor speed increased, vectorial addition of the "actual" rotor
orbit (due to unbalance of the initially rigid rotor) generally caused the
observed orbit to decrease. At still higher speeds (above 9,000 rpm) rotor
bending finally caused the observed orbit to grow beyond the initially
observed out-of-roundness. Curve A in Figure 48 depicts the described
observation. Rotor amplitudes at the remaining rotor stations (2, 3 and 4)
as represented by curves A in Figures 50 through 53 are, of course, nearly
identical to those obtained for the conical unbalance test case, Figures 38
through 41. . .
Test results for two-mass rotor with out-of-roundness at one probe locationr-
conical unbalance configuration. The effect of rotor out-of-roundness upon
balancing improvements, or lack thereof, is most suitably demonstrated by
comparison of curves B and C in Figures 48 through 53. Curves C were obtained
with rotor out-of-roundness data incorporated into the calculations of the
balancing correction weights. The computer ignored that part of the dynamic
displacement signal at rotor Station 1 which was due to disc eccentricity,
making no attempt to reduce the large observed amplitude at Station 1. This
can clearly be seen from curve C in Figure 48 where the low speed rotor orbit
is equal to the out-of-roundness and changes little with increasing rotor
speed. The slight decrease in recorded orbit size is due to vectorial sub-
traction of rotor out-of-roundness and the effects of residual unbalance.
Figures 50 through 53 show good rotor balance improvement, comparable to what
had previously been obtained for the test rotor with identical unbalance
weights attached.
With rotor out-of-roundness at the measurement probe locations ignored, or

not recognized, the balancing process will of course try to reduce the ob-
served dynamic amplitude to zero, even if it means bending the rotor between
measurement stations to achieve this. This becomes very clear from inspection
of curves B in Figures 48 through 53. Through addition of very heavy "cor-
rection" weights, rotor orbits at the out-of-round aluminum disc (rotor
station 1, Figure 48) are brought down to zero at the relatively low speed of
6,500 rpm. Even at the remaining measurement stations (Figures 50 through
53), rotor orbits are reasonably low, indicating a considerably improved
balance condition for that end of the rotor. However, the true rotor con-
dition is revealed in Figure 49 where rotor orbits have been recorded for a
location near the journal bearing adjacent to the out-of-round aluminum
disc. Since data from this location was not used for balancing purposes,
no restrictions were imposed in the correction weight calculations on rotor
amplitudes at this rotor location. Consequently, the rotor was made to bend
between stations 1 and 2, to the extent of the out-of-roundness, in the
opposite direction.
26
Three-Mass Rotor With Small Qut-Of-Roundness At All Probe Locations
For the three-mass rotor the effect of small out-of-roundness at all measure-
ment probe locations was briefly investigated. For the first part of this
investigation available data from the second test case (rotor with in-line,
in-phase unbalance) was used. However, no experimental checks on the calcu-
lated results were performed, because by the time the calculations were com-
pleted, the particular test rig setup upon which they were based had been
disturbed. Subsequently, a new trial run was made under nearly identical
test conditions and the calculated results were checked out experimentally.
Figure 54 depicts the first part of the investigation (for which the correc-
tion weight calculations incorporating the out-of-roundness data at the probe
locations were not checked out experimentally). In Figure 54, the three-mass
test rotor is shown (drive coupling at right) with identical unbalance
weights (AI through A^) from the second test case drawn in their actual loca-
tions. Ideally, that is if the rotor had been perfectly balanced prior to the
addition of these identical unbalance weights, the correction weight vectors
should be equal and opposite. (For convenience of visual comparisons, these
equal and 180 out-of-phase vectors have been drawn as negative vectors and
are shown in Figure 54 as A1^ through A'4 .) For a real rotor, as for example
the test rotor, the intentionally-added unbalances and the correction weights
will not always be identical, even if the correction weights do balance the
rotor very well. Most of the discrepancy is.probably due to residual rotor
unbalance, with additional contributions from variations in drive coupling
positioning and other small factors.
For the rotor shown in Figure 54, two consecutive trial weight runs were made
(documented as numbers 7 and 8 in Figure 25) without consideration of rotor
out-of-roundness at the probe locations. The resultant correction vectors are
shown as B-^ through B^ for the first correction runs and C^ through C^ for the
second. For ease of visual inspection, the sums of the A1, B and C vectors .,;,
have been plotted from the e.g. of the rotor. The sums of the B and C vectors
do not equal the sum of the A1 vectors, even though the rotor was then well-
enough balanced to pass through the third critical speed with acceptable orbits.
When the out-of-roundness at the rotor probe locations was incorporated into
the correction weight calculations, the first set of correction vectors with
shaft out-of-roundness included (plotted in Figure 54 as D) came very close to
matching.,the sum of both sets of correction weights calculated previously with-
out out-of-roundness data. This result led to a continued investigation of the
same test case followed by experimental checks.
Figure 55 shows the three-mass rotor with in-line, in-phase unbalance weights,
designated A. The first set of correction weights calculated without con-
sideration of rotor out-of-roundness is shown as B. (Individual correction
weights designated B^ through 64 are also shown in their respective locations
on the rotor.) Another set of correction weights calculated from the same
trial weight data but with individual rotor out-of-roundness values at each
probe location incorporated into the calculation is shown as C. (Individual
correction weights C^ through C4.) There appears to be little difference
27
between B and C, and in fact, the correction weights without out-of-roundness
data (B) are even a little closer to A1 , which would appear to indicate a
slightly better balanced rotor. However, actual experiment shows that this
is not the case.
First, the example in Figure 54 had shown that A1 is not exactly the sum of
all actual unbalances in the test rotor. The balance obtained by "B is there-
fore not necessarily better than that obtained from C. Second, actual ex-
perimental measurements demonstrate superiority in rotor balance achieved by
those correction weights which were calculated with inclusion of the out-of-
roundness data,
Test results for three-mass rotor with out-of-roundness at probe locations

The experimental balancing results are shown in Figures 56 through 60. Curves
A represent rotor amplitudes prior to balancing, but with the intentionally-
added unbalance weights in place. Curves B and C are rotor amplitudes obtained
after addition of calculated correction weights to the rotor. Shaft out-of-
roundness was not considered in the calculation of the weights which led to
curves B, but was included for those that resulted in curves C. Both sets of
trial weights, though independently calculated, were based upon identical
experimental trial weight data.
Placement Of Trial Weights At One Or Two Locations
Nearly all flexible rotor balancing experiments conducted on the test rotors
described in this report were made with trial weights placed first in one
location and then in another angularly 180 away from it. The purpose of this
procedure, which in effect doubles the amount of data which has to be acquired
for each balancing run, was to obtain increased accuracy in the calculation of
the balance correction weights.
Thus far, the claim on improved accuracy is without experimental proof. As a

preliminary step to gaining operational experience in evaluating the need for
two-location trial weight data, a few computer calculations were made utilizing
only half of the trial weight input data originally used for correction weight
calculations.
In each of the Figures 61 and 62, a calculated set of correction weights is

shown for the rotor with in-line, in-phase unbalance (Second Test Case, Figure
25). In Figure 61, the correction weights were calculated from the trial
weight data obtained with the trial weight located in the 0 location in each
balancing plane and, correspondingly, in Figure 62 the calculated correction
weights are shown for the 180 trial weight location. The correction weight
vectors calculated from the combined sets of trial weight data (trial weight
location at 0 and 180) were those shown as D in Figure 54.
The differences in vectorial sums between either Figure 61 and 62 and Figure
54 are large. Since the actual rotor responses from correction weight sets
similar to 15 in Figure 54, namely B and (B + C) in Figure 54 are known to be
quite good (Figures 26 through 30, Curves B and C, respectively) it must be
28
concluded that using only half of the trial weight data would have led to poor
improvements in rotor balance in this particular case.
A similar investigation based upon the data from Figure 55 led to nearly
identical results. However, when the other cases were examined for the two-
mass rotor with a corkscrew .unbalance, much less striking differences were
noted. .
29
CONCLUSIONS -
A previous experimental program had indicated the practical feasibility of

computer-assisted flexible rotor balancing (References 1 and 2). In this
report systematic extensions of the experimental.program are documented to .
include other rotor configurations, more difficult unbalance conditions in
the rotors to be balanced, and more refined and sophisticated methods. The
ultimate objective of these efforts is demonstration of the capability to
achieve acceptable flexible rotor balance rapidly and with certainty.
Thus fars two procedures have been investigated for flexible rotor balancing:
the Exact Point-Speed Influence Coefficient Method and the Least-Squares In-
fluence Coefficient Method These procedures are closely related (see Refer-
ence 3) and their respective selection to help improve the balance condition
of a particular rotor may be likened to the choice between a rifle and shot-
gun: the former will do if applied accurately, and singularly. The latter
allows more room for errors and will cover a more erratic movement of the
target. The Exact Point-Speed balancing procedure has proven to be capable
of utilizing a limited amount of trial weight data for each calculation of
correction weights, and as the name indicates, is usually applied at only a
few rotor speeds. For the cases investigated, balancing at one speed usually
was sufficient to bring rotor amplitudes down over the entire operating speed
range. (It is not certain, however, if this will be true if more than one
bending critical speed is found in the operating speed range.) The Least-
Squares procedure has proven to be capable of utilizing almost any amount of
trial weight data for each separate calculation of correction weights. In
practice, this permits the recording of trial weight data at several rota-
tional speeds. As the amount of input data increases, the consequences of a
single error in the data tend to decrease. However, the number of calculations
(computer time) required for the Least-Squares procedure is significantly
larger than what is required for the Exact Point-Speed procedure. In spite of
this difference, both are quite economical to implement.
The effectiveness of both balancing procedures has been measured and compared
for four selected arrangements of rotor unbalance and two rotor configurations.
In summary, both procedures were nearly equally successful. The Least-Squares
procedure proved superior when used on the three-mass rotor with unbalance
configurations that were symmetrical about the rotor center of gravity. The
Exact Point-Speed procedure may prove to be less suited to certain symmetrical
rotor configurationss such as, for example, the three-mass rotor. In this
particular case, the selection of four balancing planes (two for the wide
center disc) led to the calculation of very large correction weights to be
applied to the center disc, a practical difficulty which was avoided for the
test rotor by reduction of the number of balancing planes from four to three.
The three-mass rotor used for some of the balancing experiments received very
little bearing damping at the approach to third critical speed (first bending
critical) due to the location of the journal bearings near the nodal points of
the rotor for that mode. In some cases safe (and slow) operation through the
30
first flexural critical speed of the rotor was achieved after only two balancing
runs, with the first balancing run generally reducing rotor amplitudes by about
80%. . ' :
A two-mass rotor with higher bearing damping and reduced flexibility was suc-
cessfully and sufficiently balanced with only one balancing run.
A summary of rotor amplitudes, as they existed before balancing and after each
of the consecutive balancing runs for each test case, is shown in Table VII.
Amplitudes have been averaged for all four rotor stations and the percentage
reductions shown are the cumulative results of one to four, consecutive balancing
runs applied to each test case.
The instrumentation system assembled for the experiments was easy to operate
and of sufficient accuracy. However, difficulties experienced with gradual
instrument drift and from accidental polarity reversals in the interconnecting
lines strongly'emphasized the need for positive check-out procedures and
methods which may be implemented on a regular basis without disturbing the
rotor-bearing setup.
31
ALL SPEEDS
REDUCTION
i
TOTAL %
\D O O>
oo d r* Ov CO
r-. 00 co S CO 0* co 1*"
CJ
c 0
*g =
jKSB
\o oo eo CD CO Ô co co 5 S r- o* CO Ot co o o* i^ co (*-
g|s I
:
BALANCING RUN
C
AFTER 4TH(a)
o ^ ^
u Oi O \O
^
S
-* -a- m
<
_ c
1
% REDUCTION DUE
TO FIRST THREE
BALANCING RUNS
2- cr. -*
ON ^T CM
00
vo
%0
oo
-
co ss co <n
r^ CN
\O Irt
3 c
oo m o
1^-' ^^
<t -a- eo
>O
CO CO S 8 1 S
M
i ! e
g < c U-l * ON
-J -i
i IM <r CM M
1 i
0) * S e en
Q Z Z
5
3
OS
- 2 2 ^0_
O 0 C
s S-
BALANCIN
M -* O
S S
is$ S S S O f"- CM <?s cr> CO "~ <*
co en CO
S
S3 f
0)
**
s s s <y\
-H
10 ft
ci r-
iry r-- no co o>
m o S 1C 3
*1
o --
O as 3 g g CM 0 l~~
C Q
*
BJ H ~g "e c -5
C' \O IA <J o> eo - \> \o in

2 2
*
'I
"
3 is*
' Q H:
?
O - 2 O 10 .0 n
* . -J sj J -j '- f> >o *- eo
H
3
a W *
*
h so eo *-' in 10 ^^ CO CO M> 0\ r-. ON ^^ CO ON ON r^ co i~
3
00
w
y

H B:
r^
r+
o u\
o> o\ S 3 S S 3 ^ en O r^
o
n
^
<-l
n
0
en
fl
S g S 5 C o
AFTER IS
AVEfU
BALANCING
"E
c ON * cr. %D -^ <f n - 0 CM to co o
CM ci eo CO \O to n %o O r- S 2 S
2 2 3 N n tN CM CM tO
c 00 co CM cn 3 S K oo ^ S 2
\o en vo n 0 S CM n eo <f
(^ (^ -J r- in ON m
ta 3 S 5 "i
BEFORE
-* 'J >o CM CM *
L
I o in
r- ^f O rC
in
O
r^ CO
r~- r*
m
O
r^
r^.
to
r*
ss r^-
trt
o>
m
t-
in c>
0- ON
\o co
\O
S S m \o O -J r^
PS
O
EH 11
o
O 0
o r*
o >o

o
0 o
O 1-
o %o
o

o
g
O O ID
O O
o
0
0
SO
O O
1^
0 vO

O
0 0
O 1^
O NO
O O
go
O
r
0
\o
O 1, SJ
M >5 ^^ ^r ?r o MJ 1
0^ O sO O> o en \O O> O \o o> o NO ON O
TS
D
V
1 a
a.
0.
PROCEDURE
CJ
4-1
c
0)
t-i go -^
i
2 1
3
1 1 i II
n a 0)
I
Q
j J ^C" 1
[i 3
CJ
c.
H
cn b
0
I
C
l!l
ss
S o M
32
REFERENCES
1. Tessarzik, J.M., "Flexible Rotor Balancing By The Exact Point-Speed Influence

Coefficient Method," MTI Technical Report No. MTI-70TR59 prepared for NASA-
Lewis under Contract No. NAS3-13473, Report No. CR-72774, October 1970.
2. Tessarzik, J.M;, Badgley, R.H., and Anderson, W.J., "Flexible Rotor Balanc-
ing By The Exact Point-Speed Influence Coefficient Method," ASME Trans.,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, February 1972, p. 148.
3. Lund, J.W., and Tonnesen, J., "Analysis and Experiments On Multiplane Bal-
ancing of Flexible Rotors," ASME Trans., Journal of Engineering for Industry,
February 1972, p. 233. .
33
APPENDIX A
BALANCING PROCEDURE , - . - . . .
The procedure for conducting a balancing test run is as follows: : .,
1. The unbalanced test rotor is slowly, but continuously run-up in speed until
rotor deflections reach values which are, not to be exceeded for safety or
operational reasons. For the test rig, the maximum allowable deflection
has been arbitrarily set as 0.0035 to 0.005 in. (0.09 - 0.12 mm) peak-to-
peak. At four locations, on the rotor, vertical amplitudes and phase angles
between the amplitude signal and the reference signal are recorded by an
electronic printer. The printout is repeated at four or more different
rotor speeds. During subsequent runs trial weight data and improved-rotor
data are taken at identical speeds with numbers of recording speeds held
to a feasible minimum. Rotor amplitudes are also recorded on magnetic tape
for later plotting on an X-Y plotter.
2. Rotor amplitudes as functions of rotor speed are plotted from tape by an

X-Y plotter. From these plots, suitable balancing speeds are selected.
3. A suitable trial weight is placed at the reference mark on the rotor in

the first balancing plane. The rotor is then run up in speed to the first
pre-selected balancing speed. At that speed vertical rotor amplitudes and
phase angles are printed on paper tape. The rotor is then brought to the
second pre-selected balancing speed and again the vertical rotor amplitudes
and phase angles are printed on paper tape.
4. The above process (described in 3) is then repeated with the trial weight
placed in each of the remaining balancing planes,
5. Steps (3) and (4) may be repeated with the trial weight placed 180 from
the previous locations, but in the same axial planes.
6. The tabulated data is read into the computer for correction weight
calculations.
7. The computed weights are vectored for the appropriate hole locations in
the rotor discs. In the test rig, steel set screws are filed to match
the calculated weights.
8. With the correction weights in place, steps (1) and (2) are repeated.
Through comparison of the original and the new rotor amplitudes, either
from the printed data or from the plotted curves, the effectiveness of the
balancing effort may be determined.
The whole procedure may then be repeated for increased effectiveness.
34
APPENDIX B.
CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
The following probes and instruments were subjected to calibration checks prior
to test data acquisition:
a) proximity sensors (4)

b) Wayne-Kerr amplifiers for above sensors (4)
c) Tracking Analyzer (Model 235DS - Vibration Instrument Company)
d) Phase'Meter (Model 933A - Vibration Instrument Company)
e) Digital Voltmeter (2) (Model 200A -Monsanto)
f) X-Y plotter
The proximity sensors were calibrated in a. bench fixture consisting of a probe

hold-down clamp and a flat steel disc mounted on a micrometer stem. . Beginning
with an initial position where the sensor tip is in close contact with the s.teel
disc, the micrometer was used to move the disc away from the probe. The incre-
mental changes in output voltage indicated by a Wayne-Kerr amplifier connected
to the sensor were recorded as a function of micrometer travel. The relation-,
ship of distance between sensor tip. and steel surface versus output voltage was
plotted and a "best-fit" straight.line drawn through the data points. Typically,
a capacitance - type sensor with a range of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) (1 volt output
for a probe-to-surface distance of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) may have maximum deviation
of approximately two percent from the linear straight line near the ends of the
specified distance range.
'' i '
The linearized voltage-distance relationship was determined for each probe a4xd
. subsequently utilized as input constants for the Exact Point-Speed Balancing/
Computer Program.
The following''four calibration values were determined for theJiprobes:
Calibration Constant
Probe No. mils/Vrms (mm/Vrms)
1 30.2 (0.767)
2 29.7 (0.754)
3 30.7 (0.780)
4 31.4 (0.798)
The Wayne-Kerr amplifiers were calibrated prior to the experiments by the man-
facturers representative (MTI). A daily, check of these meters required only a
bias adjustment to reset the meter output to one volt.
The Tracking Analyzer (235 DS) was receiv.ed as a new and calibrated piece of
equipment just prior to the balancing tests (NASA Contract 3-13473) and has
been adjusted by the manufacturer just prior to the tests described herein-.
Daily bias adjustments were made for the amplitude readout and for the phase
angle between the two channels. The phase adjustment -was accomplished by
feeding a common oscillator signal to both channels and comparing the phase
angle of the output signals in the phase meter. .The bias was adjusted, as
required, to bring the phase difference to zero.
35
The Phase Meter (933 A) was repaired and adjusted by the manufacturer prior to
the tests described herein. The meter was daily adjusted for zero phase dis-
tortion between reference input and signal input with the same signal fed into
both inputs. The adjustment of the phase.meter preceded, of course, the phase
adjustment of the Tracking Analyzer.
A valuable check on the proper interpretation of the polarity and magnitude of

the phase angle indicated by the phase meter was obtained by displaying the
appropriate output signals from the Tracking Analyzer on an oscilloscope screen,
In this manner phase angles may be determined for checking purposes within five
degrees of the values indicated by the phase meter.
The digital voltmeters were checked with a laboratory standard prior to the
tests . (One new instrument had to be returned to the manufacturer for replace-
ment.) Daily checks included zero and calibration adjustments.
The X-Y plotter was calibrated in frequency for all amplitudes by using an
oscillator to drive the tracking analyzer. During regular data plotting opera-
tions, amplitudes were continually spot-checked by readings and corresponding
hand notations from the analyzer amplitude meter.
No estimate is available on the overall dynamic accuracy of the instrumentation

system used in this experiment. However, certain limitations in the instrumen-
tation were recognized. For instance, the phase meter has a stated minimum
signal input requirement of 2.5 millivolts rms. This corresponds to approxi-
mately 0.000075-in. (0.002 mm) peak-to-peak rotor amplitude, when measured
with capacitance probes having a 0.010-in. (0.25 mm) linear range. If rotors
with less initial amplitude due to unbalance are to be balanced, either
shorter range probes or pr.e-amplifiers would have to be used.
36
APPENDIX C
TYPICAL BALANCING DATA FOR A SELECTED CASE
Date of Test: 11-15-71

Trial Weight Run: No. 3, Third Test Case (In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance)
Rotor Balancing Speed: 8840 rpm
Measuring Rotor Amplitude Trial Weight Trial Weight

Station (mV rms) Phase Angle oz-in. gm-cm Location
1 -:- ill None None
2 .88. - 72 None None
3 64 - 77 None None
4 84 113 None None
1 93 106 .0833 6
2 97 - 72 .0833 6 Plane 1
3 67 - 77 .0833 6 at 0
4 94 113 .0833 6
1 91 116 .0833 6
2 80 - 72 .0833 6 Plane 1
3 61 - 77 .0833 6 at 180
4 74 114 .0833 6
1 85 111 .0833 6
2 86 - 70 .0833 6 Plane 2
3 63 - 75 .0833 6 at 0
4 77 114 .0833 6
1 101 111 .0833 6

2 92 - 74 .0833 6 Plane 2
3 65 - 79 .0833 6 at 180
4 91 112 .0833 6
1 86 112 .0833 6
2 96 - 70 .0833 6 Plane 3
3 64 - 75 .0833 6 at 0
4 . 76 114 .0833 6
1 99 111 .0833 6
2 92 - 75 ..0833 ; 6 Plane 3
3 65 - 80 .0833 6 at 180
4 92 112 .0833 6
37
Measuring Rotor Amplitude Trial Weight Trial Weight
Station (mV rms) Phase Angle 02-in. gm-cm Location
1 103 111 .0833 6

2 98 - 73 .0833 6 Plane 4 -
3 74.3 . . - 76 - . .0833 . 6 at 0
4 83.5 108 .0833 6
1 83 111 .0833 6
2 80 - 72 .0833 6 . Plane 4. .
3 55 - 79 .0833 6 at "180
4 86 118 .0833 6
The data listed above was typically averaged from two or three readings .taken at
the same rotor speed. A typical,, original data printout sheet is reproduced below:
Data for 8840 rpm, with trial weight in Plane 4 at 0:
Measuring Scanner Phase Amplitude

Station ^Channel Angle (m v x 10"'*)
1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.3, 0 0 1.0 2 9 m v -11

2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 7 2.9 0 0 0.9 7 3 m v 1
3. Data Cycle
3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 7 5.9 0 0 P. 7 3 7 m V (
1
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 0 7.8 0 0 P. 8 3 P m v
J
1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 1 1.3 0 0 l.P 2 7 m V . }
2 3 0 0 0 00 p 0 7 2.9 0 0 P. 9 8 P m ;'
2. Data Cycle
3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.9 0 0 P. 7 4 3 m V
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 0 7.8 0 0 P. 8 4 P m V
1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.2 0 0 l.P 3 7 m V
2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.8 0 0 P. 9 8 5 m V
1. Data Cycle
3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.8 p
0 P. 7 4 3 m V /
1
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.0 0 0 P. 8 3 7 m v 1
38
APPENDIX D
CALCULATED CORRECTION WEIGHTS FOR TEST BALANCING RUNS
Test ; Calculation Balancing Correction Weight Correction Weight

Case Number Plane oz-in. gm-cm Angle (Degrees)
Corkscrew 2 1 .16524 11.92 - 77.9
Unbalance 2 .28565 20.61 166.2
4 .28094 20.27 - 2.1
Exact
Point-Speed 6 1 .07738 5.58 226.4
Influence 2 .00666 0.48 40.7
Coefficient 4 .02435 1.75 71.6
Method
9 1 .01416 1.02 222.5
2 .02753 1.98 117.8
4 .00840 0.61 69.0
Corkscrew 11 1 .17122 12.35 - 84.7

Unbalance 2 .32798 23.66 165.4
3 .06702 4.83 64.3
Least 4 .26246 18.93 6.9
Squares
Method 1 .030 2.16 - 115.0
13
2 .007 0.51 - 95.0
3 .023 1.66 7.8
4 .094 6.78 179.0
15. 1 .0101 0.73 169.3

2 .0137 0.99 - 152.0
3 .0200 1.44 6.2
4 .0758 5.47 - 179.1
16 1 .0154 1.11 165.8

2 .070 5.05 97.3
3 .0202 1.46 - 81.5
4 .0756 5.46 153.9
In-Line 56 1 .20415 14.73 18 . 0

In- Phase 2 .54222 39.12 34.4
Unbalance 3 .23658 17.07 25.6
Least 4 .28045 20.23 21.2
Squares
Method 57 1 .08117 5.85 1.5
2 .16178 11.67 97.8
3 .18098 13.05 - 51.9
4 .02343 1.69 49.1
39
Test Calculation Balancing Correction Weight Correction Weight
Case Number Plane oz-in. gm-ctn Angle (Degrees)
In-Line 50 1 .27749 20.02 - 165.6

Out-of-Phase . 2 . .2,6507.. 19.12 . . ..,' .,29.8
Unbalance 3 .33657 24.28 ' "3;4.'8
. 4 .31308 22.59 - 175.0
Least
Squares ,-Q 1 ' ' .01952: !
.1.'41 175.7
Method 2 .08590 6.20 175.8
3 ^.06509 4.69 32.3 -:-
4 .01509 '1.08 - 130.8
Conical 59 1 .08979 6.47 10.2

Unbalance 2 .19464 14.04 243.0
4 .41538 29.97 219.8
Exact
Point-Speed
Influence
Coefficient
Method
Conical 60 1 .08426 6.08 26.4
Unbalance 2 .16964 12.24 - 137.0
4 .42677 30.79 -142.4
Least
Squares
Method
Conical 75 ' 1 .4834 34.88 - 172.0

Unbalance 2 .7578 54.68 - 110.2
. 4 .3699 26.69 - 160.5
Least
Squares .
Method
Without du't-of-round data
Cortical 79 1 .0427 3.08 154.7

Unbalance 2 .3232 23.32 - 125.9
4 .4123 29.75 - 145.3
Least
Squares
Method
With out-of-round data
40
FIGUiRES
41
(a) Three-Mass Rotor Configuration with Steel End Mass
(b) Aluminum End Mass for the Two-Mass Rotor Configuration
Fig. 1 Assembly Drawing of the Flexible-Rotor Test Rig

43
MTI-13647
o
iJ
o
00
01
a)
S
o
to
rt
Q
H
e
H-l
o
D.
60
O
4-1
O
CN

00
45
Trial Weight Location
Black
Reflective
, Trial Weight
Location Lag
90C 270C
Ref. "Mark"
on Rotor
180
Fig. 3 End View of Rotor End Mass (Opposite Drive End) With Reference
Mark and Typical Holes for Balancing Weights
46
Fig. 4 View of Flexible-Rotor Test Rig
47
MTI-9263
Page Intentionally Left Blank
(See Figure 1) (See Figure 1)
Fig. 5 Bearing Assembly Drawing of.Flexible-Rotor Test Rig
49
MTI-6869
Fig. 6 Tilting-Pad Journal Bearing for Test Rig Rotor
51
MTI-6871
o c
4-1 O
O -H
u
01 01
> c
H C O
^ o 4-1
o o O
0)
0
o 0,
pa ti
\-t
o
CO
c CD
0) PQ
CO
o
C
CO
c
60
X
0)
J3
O
k
01 PH
u
01
V4
0)
4-1
01 00
-H
52
1-1
o c
4-1 O
o <->
S J-1
u
(U CU
> c
.-I C
t-i O
Q U
CO
<u
H
00
C
O
X C
CD
03 ca O
c
o O cd
o
cfl o
u <J
o O 0)
CD
01 r-l
cd CM
00
C
H
00 (J x-^
C M
Cd O
U
c -< -u
a) o
pa erf
cd a to
u C in
o a) a]
S-i
o
CO
8M Hi
C
<D
C/l
oo
c
00
X
00
H
to
01
u
c
0)
01
< =
a!
rrl
53
c
o
H
4-1
cti
u
C
<u
en
C
60
C
H
U
c
as
PQ
l-i
O
4-1
O VJ
a: a;
0) T3
r-t C
fc 03
c
u c
H <e
4J y
B) W
e
0) JS
60
H
54
100,000
80,000 - A - BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS (HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL DIRECTIONS
B- FIRST CRITICAL SPEED
C-SECOND CRITICAL SPEED
D-THIRD CRITICAL SPEED
8,000
INDIVIDUAL BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS, LB/IN
2 4 8 , X|0 7 2 4 8 , xK) 8 2
INDIVIDUAL BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS, N/m
Fig. 10 Critical Speed Map for Flexible-Rotor Test Rig (Three-Mass Rotor)
55
MTI-949L
o
o
oo
H
O!
tn
o H
01
00
O
Bfi
I
0)
<-*b
CO
(U
o o.
cd
j=
CO
<u
D
QC O
O
T3
(U
O
or a
OT
co O
CJ 4J
H O
4J p^
H
Id CD
o CJ ID
ro U ?
CD
CL cu
UJ LULU o
Q OO CM
OOO
U)
5b NOI1031J3a dOiOd 3AI1V13H

100,000
A - BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS (HORIZONTAL
80,000 AND VERTICAL DIRECTIONS
B - FIRST CRITICAL SPEED
C - SECOND CRITICAL SPEED
D- THIRD CRITICAL SPEED
40,000
20,000
Q_
cr 10,000
8,000
Q_
CO
cc.
o
o
a: 4,000
2,000
1,000
xlO IxKT xlO
INDIVIDUAL BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS, LB/IN
4 8
lxl0 7 2 4 8
IxlO 8 2
INDIVIDUAL BEARING RADIAL STIFFNESS, N/m
Fig. 12 Critical-Speed Map for Flexible-Rotor Test Rig (Two-Mass Rotor)
57
MTI-13233
o
o
O
ei
CO
O)
CO
S
O
CO
0)
H
l-i
O
4J
O
OS
o
cu
t-l
8
O
M-l
I
CO
Ol
(X
CD
J=
CO
HI
v
o
o
01
a
CO
CJ
TJ
CU
a.
o
<VJ
o
ale bo
H
fa
58
NOI1031J3Q dOlOd 3AllV13d
ROTOR WITH CORKSCREW UNBALANCE - A (FIGS. 15-24)
,-0.25 OZ-IN (18.0 GR-CM)
0.25 OZ-IN-J 0.12 OZ-1N^ ^0.324 OZ-IN

(18.0 CR-CM) (8.64 CR-CM) (23.33 CR-CM)
\
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN * 1
TRIAL WEIGHT 0,172 OZ-IN (12.38 CR-CM)

TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATION 0 AMJ 160
ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 6290, 8290. 9270, 9870 RPM
I
L
CALCULATION t 1 1
j
CALCULATION t 11
4 PROBES f*** ^- ***" 4 PROBES ***" \ \^ \
4 PLANES 1 1
ri-'-'M ~j r.~""M n
4 PLANES 1 1 [
1 SPEED: 9870 RPM 4 SPEEDS: 6290, B290, 9370, 9870
' EXACT POINT SPEED PROCEDURE 1 LEAST SQUARES PROCEDURE
' COMPUTED CORRECTION WEIGHTS TOO LARGE FOR

1
TAPPED HOLES IN CENTER DISK
J \
1 IMPROVED ROTOR B (PIGS. 20-24) 1

1
CALCULATION t 2
i
3 PROBES f f*" f TRIAL WEIGHT RUN * 4
n M j _M_jj TRIAL WEIGHT - 0.0723 OZ-IN (5.184 CR-CM)

TRIAL HEIGHT LOCATION - 0 AND 180
3 PLANES 1
ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 6290. 8290, 9370, 9870,
1 SPEED: 9870 RPM 10320, 10570 RPM
\ ,
1 IMPROVED ROTOR B (PIGS. 15-19) 1 CALCULATION * 13
| ^
4 PROBES |
if
I
^ "**
I I
TRIAL WEIGHT 0.072 02. IN (5.18 GR-CM) 4 PLANES 1 1

TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATION 0 AND 180 4 SPEEDS: 6290, 9370, 10320, 10570 RPM
ROTOR BALANCING SPEED: 10570, 10670 RPM
'
\
\ CALCULATION f 5 1 IMPROVED ROTOR C (FIGS. 20-24) 1
r f ^r
p. r-U r ri
TRIAL WEIGHT - 0.0723 OZ-IN (5.184 GR-CM)

1 1 SPEED: 10670 RPM TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATION 0 AND 180
ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS:. 6290, 9370, 10320,
r
1 WEIGHTS TOO LARGE 10570, 10670 RPM
1'
CALCULATION t 6 CALCULATION # 15
3 PROBES r r r 4 PROBES f C f C
3 PLANES | | 4 PLANES 1 1 1
1 SPEED: 10670 RPM 4 SPEEDS: 9370, 10320, 10370. 10670 RPM
1 IMPROVED KOTOS C (FIGS. 13-19) 1 1 DtPEOTSD 2OTGB D (PTC5 20-24} 1
1 ,
TRIAL WEIGHT RDH * 3 TKIAL WEIGHT ECB # 6
TKIAL WEIGHT * 0.0773 02-IH (3. ISA GR-CM) TRIAL WEIGHT - 0.141 OZ-IB (10.13 CR-CM)
TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATIOH - 0 AKD 180 TRIAL WXICHT LOCATION - 0 ASD 180
EDTOa BAIAHCIBC SPEED: 10S30 KPM ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 9370, 10320, 10570 RPM
,
CALCOLAT10H # 9
3 PROBES j*"~ f 6 PROBES f i**1 |

M
QZM | j; -^~[| LF-^- T 1 J1
3 FLAKES 4 PLACES 1 j
l^FEED: 10830 IPH~ - _ . 3 STEEDS: 937P. 10370. 1DS70 BPH
\ "
1 DffROTZD MTOa D (nC3. 15-19) 1 1 DtTRCVCD EOTOB E (PICS. 2O-24) 1
59
Fig. 14 First Test Case: Rotor With Corkscrew Unbalance MTI-13275

C
.OJ
 t>0
CO C
4-1 -i-l
ca o
C
4J CO
CO i-l
CO
co pq
(U
o 
^ 3
a. o
B iV3d-oi-MV3d '3anindwv
00
H
in
CVJ
o
60
T3
C
CO
(U
o
C
CO
II
CO
XI 0)
C )-i
O 3
O
3 
CO
O,
C I
O 4J
H C!
4J -rH
H O
O PH
d
O 4->
O O
CD
^ X
CO W
rl
4J (U
rl J3
C -U
I Jo
CM CO
C
C! 3
Ho r"i
4J tXO
(0 C
4J -H
CO U
C
4J CO
CO .-<
CO
(0 PP
0)
O CO
H W
- 3
au
J <"
< CO
O 01
pj <U
M
rH .C
CO H
U
H H
4-1 <U
SJ 4-1
U 4-1
( QI
_J 00
8 o
O
61
o
CD
CD
O
CO
CU O
H O
O 1-J
P,
l-i 13
O 01
O <1)
"-' a
C/l
C i
O 4J
1-4 G
4J -i-l
H O
-a 4
O 4J
o o
CD
^ca X
w
CO CO
O ftj
H
4J 60
CO C
U -H
co o
C
P CO
cfl ^
CO
CO PQ

-" 3
a o
B CD
< CO
C
k O
o o
4J
o cu
Ki 0)
'^ Q,
CO
C I
O 4J
H CS
4-1 -H
H O
O JJ
O O
CO
-I X
CO H
H
4-1 O)
H J3
C 4J
<( CO
O Pi
H
4-1 bO
co a
4J -i-l
CO U
C
4J CO
co <->
CO
co pq
CD
o co
H 4-1
-I 3
Q. U
B <u
< CO
O
o
4-1
o
4-1 CO
(-1 4-1
CO M-l
QI CO
I 00
o
m
in
CNJ
o o
63
o
c
CO
CO
rI
CO
.0
C
3 0)
M
3 3
CD O
)-i 0)
O O
CO O
^ M
l-i Pu
O
CJ "O
wx d)
(U
c a
o co
rl I
4-1 4-1
*O !-)
3 O
O Pn
o
4J
iI CJ
CO co
H
C (U
H .C
C ca
O C
H 3
4J pi
CO
4J 60
CO 3
H
U O
eg c
co
CO i-l
(U CO
o pq
4-1 0)
(-1 CO
o c
4-1 O
o
N M
H 0)
!-l 4-1
O M-4
3S <
( QI
bo
H
IA
64
o
c
CO

Ou 3
O
<J CD
CO
P C
o o
r-l Q
03 fa
o
H M
4J Ol
M 4-1
CU M-l
60
H
10
h-
o
65
o
c
CD
01
O
c
CO
.-I
CD
,0
C
'
H Tt
i-l 4J
3
<q oj
co
U C
o o
4J CJ
o
OS M
i-l O
(0 fa
o
H H
4J CU
M 4J
ID 4-1
( 01 x NOW3d-oi-w3d'3anindwv
CN
00
H
in
r*- CSJ
o o
66 wiou
C
(0
O
C
CO
iI
CO
.0
C
(U 01
1-1 M
O 3
O) T3
J<J 

CO
C C
O 3
H cd
4J
to to
U C
CO CO"
I-l
CO CO

H -H
-l 4J
CX 3
S U
<3 a*
CO
!-. C
O O
4J CJ
S M
3
r-l O
CO fe
O
H H
( 01 x Nl) W3d-Oi-W3d'3(inindMf dOiOd CN

tN
00
I I
O ID
f-- 10 CJ
o o o
67
C
CO
O)
a
c
CD
(U 0)
l-i M
CO t)
A! (U
H O
O O
4J CO
H 31
-o a
dw
o
o -w
ca
,-1 CO
CO C
CO CO
l-l
CO CO
Q> PQ
O
3 
O. 3
<J6 cu
U
(0
M C
O O
W O
O
i-l O
ca PM
-^
4J M
0)
M 4J
(U U-l
( 01 x NO >iV3d-oi->iV3d'3anindwv CO
CN
I I I _J Ml
10 o to o
r*- IO CVJ
o o o
68
C
CD
<D
O
CO
S-i
U 01
CO S-J
^ 3
H T3
O 0)
U O
v-> O
l-i
C PL,
O
H CO
4J CD
H M
T3 CO
C 3
o cr
o co
CO CO
H CO
4J CD
H iJ
C
C
O CO
H C
U 3
CO P5
4-1
W 60
C
4J -t-l
CO U
CO
c
CO
0) rH
O CO
3 PQ
4-1
Du -H
o
M 01
O ca
4-> a
o o
Pi U
CO 3
4J O
C Pn
O
N h
H 0)
M 4J
(fi QI x NOwad-oi-xvad'aoniridtiiv 5^
CN
00
H
IO
N- CVJ
O o
69
ROTOR WITH IN-LINE, IN-PHASE UNBALANCE - A (FIGS. .26-30)
15
-0.37 OZ-IN
(26.64 GR-CM) EACH
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN jf 7
TRIAL WEIGHT = 0.071 OZ-IN (5.11 GR-CM)

TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATION = 0 AND 180
ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 4500, 8290, 9370 RPM
CALCULATION i? 56
4 PROBES
-rD= EL
4 PLANES
I
3 SPEEDS: 4500, 8290, 9370 RPM
LEAST SQUARES METHOD
I
IMPROVED ROTOR B (FIGS. 26-30)
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN if 8

ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS = 8290, 9370, 10400, 10620 RPM
i
CALCULATION #57
4 PROBES
r r rr
4 PLANES
3 SPEEDS: 8290, 9370, 10620 RPM
i
IMPROVED ROTOR C (FIGS. 26-30)
70
Fig. 25 Second Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance
MTI-13276
,
M &
1
r-<
s
3
O M
H C
4J -H
eg o
u C
C/) CO
f-l
4J CO
CO PQ
ra OJ
cu >
-H
3 4J
4-> 3
H O
,-1 co
vO
i i
10 o 00
f*- IO CNJ
o o o
71
0)
o
a
co
1-1
CO

O -H
3 4-t
4J 3
H O
i-l (!)
O. CO
O O
S
Pi
I-l
i-l CD
CO 4J
O H
VJ T3
0) C
> CO
01 x Nl) W3d-Oi->IV3d'3(]nindWV HOiOd
I I
00
IO
r^
o
ir> CSJ
o o o
72 (m) MV3d-oi-)iv3d 'sannidwv
01
o
a
CO
1I
to
.0
c
 ^
g
a
H C
4-1 -H
co O
U C
co ca
II
4-1 CO
CD M
ca 0)
eg >
T3 -H
3 4-1
W 3
H O
i-l CU
CX ca
o
t-l
o o
Pi
CO U
O M-l
01 C
> ca
L Q|XNI)W3d-01-W3d'3anindflV U010U
k
oo
CN
00
H
10
f- CM
Pn
o o
73
 a
CO eg
CD M
CO 0)
0) >
O -H
3 4J
4J 3
rl O
i-l CD
a, co
o o
r-4 Q)
CO 4J
O M-l
H <
4-1
M T3
IV3d'3anindWV dOlOd > CO
CNJ
I I I
00
to o tO
r- m CM
o o o
74
<u
o
a
CO
II
CO
J2
c

3 >
-< 3
o. u
J <"
< co
C
h O
o o
4-1
o o
r-l
CO )-i
4J (U
a 4J
o w
N <
H
n -a
o c
re
00
m o
in in
CM
r-l
r*-
o o o
75
ROTOR WITH IN-LINE, OUT-OF-PHASE UNBALANCE - A
(FIGS. 32-35)
^0.37 OZ-IN EACH

fn ( 2 6 . 6 4 GR-CM) '
JEL JXL
i
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN # 9
ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 6290, 7720, 8290, 8840 RPM
CALCULATION V 50
4 PROBES
C X r ur
D IEL
4 PLANES
4 SPKEDS: 6290, 7770, 8290, 8840 RPM
i
IMPROVED ROTOR B (FIGS 32-35)
\
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN IF 10
TRIAL WEIGHT = 0 . 0 7 2 5 OZ-IN (5.184 GR-CM)

ROTOR BALANCING SPEEDS: 10670, 10780 RPM
CALCULATION if 53
4 PROBES
D JSL
X rD JXL
4 PLANES
2 SPEEDS: 10670, 10780 RPM
i
76 Fig. 31 Third Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance
MTI-13277
1
in
0)
o
c
CD
r-l
CO
J3
C
01
CO
CD
PM
i
M-l
O
I
4-1 
a co
C ca
o 01
o^
1-1 at
CD ,C
H 4J
4-1
H >,
C U3
c oo
O C!
I-i -1-1
u o
CO C!
4-1 CO
4J pq
CO
(U
(!) >
-O -H
3 4-1
4J 3
H O
-I Q)
a. to
t-l
o
CO
U
oj x MI) wad-oi-wad'aarundwv 0) C
> co
I I ro
o tf>
to CsJ 00
o o
77
CO
1-1
CO
J3
C
ai
CO
CO
14-1
O
I
4J 0)
3 t-i
O 3
O
. 01
a) u
c o
H u
nJ PL,
C co
M 
4-1
i-l 4->
T3 to
C CO
O (U
O hJ
CO
C .0
I
CM
C 00
O C
H 'H
4J O
CO C
4J CO
</> i-H
CO
4J PQ
(U
0) >
O -i-l
3 4-*
4J 3
H o
-( 0)
a ca
e c
O O
CD
U
QJ <uî T3c
> CO
I I
in
f*
o
in CVJ
00
1-1
O o o
78
o
CD
ii
co
J3
0)
CO
CO
J-l 01
3 l-i
O 3
M a
a)
0) O
c o
H M
nJ PM
C
M
CO
C 3
o cr
H CO
T3 CO
C CO
O 0)
U iJ
i-l (U
CO J=
H >,
CO
'
co pej
C 60
O C!
H -H
4J O
co a
4J CO
C i-l
CO
4-1 pq
CO
01
0) >
O -H
O 4*
4-1 3
H O
,-1 CP
D. co
Iog
M
O O
Pi
M
t-l CO
CO 4-1
U M-l
M T3
( oi x NI) W3d-oi-w3d (U C
> CO
co
I _J
o IO
CM
O
O 00
79
co
,0
CO
CO
CD
PM
i
14-1
O
i
4J Q)
3 M
O 3

4-1
H 4J
T3 CO
B CO
o ai
i-l CO
I I CO
o in
cvi CiO
m
o
o o
80
ROTOR WITH CONICAL UNBALANCE - A (FIGS. 37-41)
<}
B 50
JSL
o.in OZ-IN -0.513 OZ-IN

(7.99 GR-CM) (36.94 GR-CM)
I
TRIAL WEIGHT RUN # 11

TRIAL WEIGHT LOCATION = 0 AND. 180
CALCULATION f 59 CALCULATION # 60
3 PROBES
r r r na:
4 PROBES
r X rr JSL
3 PLANES 3 PLANES
1 SPEED: 9370 RPM 4 SPEEDS: 4500, 6290, 8290, 9370 RPM
EXACT POINT SPEED PROCEDURE LEAST SQUARES PROCEDURE
IMPROVED ROTOR B (FIGS. 37-41)

T
Fig. 36 Fourth Test Case: Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance
81
MTI-13652
CO
o
H 4-1
C co
O co
U CD
t T3
C
CO CO
CO
o a.
M-l C
O -H
o
C PM
o
H 4J
4J O
H CO
-O X
C W
o
o T3 T3
O C V
4-1 CO O
O O
PS /^ M
V Pk
^ O
CO Cj CO
O CO <U
H r-l M
4-1 CO CO
H J3 3
,
4-1 J3
i-l
d .c
M CJ
I M
CM C
C PC!
O
H M)
4J C
CO -i-l
4-1 O
M C
CO
4J i-l
CO CO
CO
0) CD
'O C
3 O
4-1
H I-l
i-l 3 W
oo
1 i i i
in o
g m
Q
cj
p
00
H
83
eg
o
H 4J
B CO
O <o
o <u
h 0)
o x;
4-1 4-1
O
a; T3
CO CO
CO
II
o o.
4-)
<4-l B
O -i-l
O
B PH
o
H 4J
4J U
vt CO
B W
O
O CD
CO
H ^
4-1 .a
H
B J3
H O
i 3
CO fi
B (3
O
H 60
4J B
CO -H
4J O
W B
CO
CO
d) (U
T3 B
3O
r-4 (1)
a. 4J to
B m co
o B at
4-1CO O
o o
pi ^ M
CU PU
i-l O
co B ca
u co cu
H i-l }-i
CO co
H
(U B cr
p co
( oi x NO W3d-oi-w3d '3aniiidwv co
t>o
I I H
IT) 10
r^. CM
o O
84
tO
o
H 4J
C to
O CO
O -l 0)
O J=
4J 4->
o
p-i T3
CO CO
CO
eg T3
o o,
<? 4-
M-l C
O i-l
o
C PL,
o
H 4J
4-1 O
H CO
"c w
o
O V
f.
r-l 4J
CO
4-> ^Q
r-l
Ci .C
C pd
o
H 60
4J C!
CO -H
4J O
CO C
CO
4-> r-4
CO CO
PQ
CO
cu CD
O d
3O
r-l 0)
CX 4-1 W
E^-ID
^ <n
J-i T3 T3
O Ci 01
4-1 CO O
o o
r-l O
co C co
O CO <U
r-l r-l M
ro 4J
U 43 3
CO CO
Q) C CT
to
( oi
00
CM
O
85
co
u
H
e
O 4J
U CO
s^ eg
CO
O J=
PS 4-1
ca "O
ca C
5 to
TO - oV
8.
co
<4-l I
O 4J
C -H
O O
Tt PM
o o
c a
o x
ow
^-1 (U
(0 43
1-1 4-1
I -g
CO
* W
C C
O 3
H PS
4J
CO 00
4JC
CO -H
O
M C
CO CO
r-4
CO CO
CU 13
a
3 CU
4-1 C
H O
r-l
B cu
< 4J CO
<4-l CU
V^ ^C M
O 3
4J "O T3
O C CU
Pi CO O
CO CU Pn
u u
C B to
O CO CU
N i-l h
H CO tO
M U3 3
o c tr
QI wiou K E3 co
I 00
H
86 uoiou
e
CO
a
CO
o
H
O -H
C 4->
CO CO
4-1
^W
CO
C 4J
60 co
rl
W (-1
O
0) 4J
o o
a e
o
O t-1
C -u
CO CO
4-1
l-l </>
00 CO
H
CO H
O
0) 4J
O O
C 04
CD
^ CO
0) CO
O
fi-3
0) H
0)
3 M
u o
0 M-l
PQ
4J
01 C
^-1 0)
00 6
C 
(U
an
CO CO
4-1
i-l M
CO CO
1-1
CO M
O
U 4-1
O O
ti Pi
(U
M CO
ID CO
* 'o
M O
0
H
(S33U93Q) 319NV 3SVHd
89
u
H
S
s
X
2
a
o
>
0)
O i-l
a -u
".-3
f-l CO
s
00 <0
H
CO h
O
0) 4J
o q
d PS
u
M a
u a
<w M
> S
05 I
c(U EHs
(U

o o
CJ fvj
01
1-1 CO
01 CO
IH cfl
 H
CU
4J O
0) <4-<
PQ
4-1
0) B
r-( QJ
0) r-<
co a.
aj co
00
(S33H93Q)319NV 3SVHd
91
ROTOR WITH CONICAL UNBALANCE - A (FIGS. 48-53)
AND OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS
AA
V
(0.0011 T N . ) 0.111 02-IN '0.513 02-IN
( 7 . 9 9 GR-CM) ( 3 6 . 9 4 GR-CM)
T
T R I A L WEIGHT RUN =r 12
TRIAL WEIGHT = 0.071 02-IN' (5.1.1 GR-CM)

T R I A L WEIGHT LOCATION = 0 AND 180
CALCULATION ?> 79
L
CALCULATION <-: 61
* ( f us:r f
PROBES
JKL
4 PROBES
3 PLANES
3 PLANES
4 SPEEDS: 4500, 6290, 8290, 9370 RPM 4 SPEEDS: 4500, 6290, 8290, 9370 RPM
LEAST SQUARES METHOD. OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS DATA LEAST SQUARES METHOD, OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS DATA
INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS. NOT USED FOR CALCULATIONS
IMPROVED ROTOR B (FIGS. 48-53) IMPROVED ROTOR C (FIGS. 48-53)
Fig. 47 Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance - With and Without Out-of-Roundness
Data Included in Least Squares Balancing Calculations
92
MTI-13279

CD CO
y Q
C CO
O en
O <l>
^ C
O
M C
O 3
4J O
O Pd
Pi I
CO O
CO I
CD 4J
i CD
CO
C 4-1
O O
I-l
4-1 C
H O
a -^
c co
O D
U '-'
CO M
H
4-1 4-1
r^ 3
C O
M .C
o
c c
O co
CO 4J
4J -H
CO S CO
C
4J O
CO C -H
3 4->
CO Pi CO
Q) r-<
O 00 3
3 c y
4J -i-l i-l
r4 y CO
1-1 C CJ
O. CO
E -I 4J
< CO J3
PQ CxO
O <1)
4J C
o o
pi C
O
-I (1) -H
CD 4-1 4-1
u IM o
H <; cu
( oi x NO xvBd 4-1 )-l
H TD 1-1
cu c o
> co o
_l oo
CM
o
00
O 1-1
fj-l
93
0) C
o o
c -H
ID 4J
i-l o
CO 4-1
H 14-1
O co
C3 vC
o en
O u-<
-i o
CO
H C3
4-1 O
H -i-l
C CO
M 3
I O
C 4J
O 3
H O
*-> JS
CD 4->
4J 1-1
OT S
CO C
CQ pj
V
T3 60
3 C
4-1 -H
H CJ
-i C co
O. co C
B
< CO i-l
PQ 4J
.
O <t ^-1
4J d 3
ooo
Pi r-l
1-1 CO
r-l <V U
CO 4-1
( oi x NO WBd-oi-wBd'Borundwv aoiod
O M-l 4-1
4-1 60
l-l -o 1-1
0) C H)
> wS
CM
o 60
94
cu
o
C (U
CO .G
I -U
CD
CD
r-l 4-1
CD CD
O Q
H
C co
O CO
O 1)
v-x C
o
l-i C
O 3
4-1 O
O Pi
OS i
14-1
CO O
CO I
CO 4-1
o
g
U-l J2
CO
O CO
C U-l
o o
H
4-1 C
H O
T3 -t-l
C co
O 3
O ''
o
.-< c
H 3
Cl O
H f,
c: c
O co
H
4-" .e
CO 4J
4J -H
CO S W
c
4J O
CO C -H
3 4J
W p^ CO
CD r-<
T) 00 3
3 O
i-l i-l
i-l O CO
-ICO
D. CO
< CO J3
PQ 00
l-i i-l
O CO O
I
U)
CM
O (10
95
o
C <U
CD f.
C -H
(0
l-l w
co eg
o Q
H
C co
O CO
U QJ
M C
O 3
4-1 O
O &
CO O
CO I
O
o
g co
<4-l J3
O CO
C M-l
o o
^
4J C
-I O
T3 -H
Ci CO
O 3
O rH
CJ
i C
CO M
H D
C O
M JS
C
O
1-1
CO 4-1
H
CO CO
C
o
co C -H
3 4.)
co pd co
(U .-i
O 60 3
3 c: o
4J -H r-l
H O CO
-ICO
Q. co
6114-1
^H CO ,C
PQ 60
S-l -H
4J C S
o o
& c
M O
r-i cy -H
CO 4J 4J
O <4-l O
1-4 <; cu
( 01 x Nl) W3d-Oi-W3d 'adfUndWV dOlOU 4->
l-l T3
J
i-l
> co U
I
IO
CM 60
o
(MM) xv3d-oi-xv3d ânindwv
O
c <u
CO J3
C -H
CO
r-l 4-1
CO CO
O Q
rH
C co
O CO
CJ O
co a -r-i
3 4J
ra pi co
(1) II
T> 60 D
D C O
4-J -i-l i I
r-lCJ CO
-I C CJ
CL co
r-l AJ
< co j^
W 00
)-l -H
O V 0)
U C 12
O O
P4 C
H O
CD
ro CD
O >4-l
4-J 4-1
CJ
H <; 01
dOlOd 4-1
W T)
Q) C
M
O
H
> co O
I _J
to in
CM
o
60
o
97
0)
o
CD
-l .01
co
J3
C
i-l
i-l
CO CO
O 4J
H CO
C Q
o
U to
v^ to
01
l-i C
o -o
J-> C
O 3
Pi O
Pi
CO
to
S ?
i 4J
O 3
3 O
H
O co
C CO
O
H IM
4J O
H
o c
n o
O -i-l
u to
3
iI iI
CO O
H C
^J M
H
C J->
H 3
O
C
O 73
H a
4J CO
CO
4-> JS.
to
CO C
o
03 C -H
01 3 4J
a Pi co
3
4-1 60 3
H C O
-I T-l ,-<
O, O CO
e c u
< CO
-I 4J
i-l CO
O M 00
-H
o cu QJ
PS C
,1
o
C
CO )-i O
4J 01
C 4J
O <4-l
N<
^l T3
o c
PC CO
I CO
IO If)
CM
o 00
H
98
(m) MV3d-oi->iV3d 'aanindHV doioa
A = UNBALANCE VECTORS
A'= NEGATIVE UNBALANCE VECTORS
B = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER FIRST
BALANCING RUN-NO OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS
DATA USED IN CALCULATIONS
C = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER SECOND
_ IS \ CONSECUTIVE BALANCING RUN- NO OUT-OF-
ROUNDNESS DATA USED IN CALCULATIONS
D = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER FIRST
Cx"
\ BALANCING RUN-OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS
DATA FOR PROBE LOCATIONS USED IN
CALCULATIONS
B
\
\ ^
A'4
\ \\
\
*
\
B,V
Fig. 54 Unbalance Vectors and Correction Weight Vectors For Test Rotor
With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance Condition (Second Test Case Data)
99
MTI-13182
A = UNBALANCE VECTORS '
B = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER FIRST
BALANCING RUN -NO OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS
DATA USED IN CALCULATIONS
C = CORRECTION WEIGHT'VECTORS AFTER FIRST
BALANCING RUN-OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS
DATA FOR PROBE LOCATIONS USED IN
CALCULATIONS ,
Fig. 55 Unbalance Vectors arid Correction Weight Vectors for Test -Rotor
With In-Line,"In-Phase Unbalance Condition
100
MTI-l
0)
e
H 4J 4J
J D 4=
I O t>0
c .c -H
M 4J 0)
c c
O TJ O
-I C -i-l
4J Cfl 4-1
rl O
O ,C 0)
C 4J iJ
0 M-I M
cj rs o
o
II >
cd c cu
4J OS 4J
C 60 C
H C -H
H
1 o cd
C 4-1
-< cd cd
o CO
H CO
O> 0)
cd C C
4J O T3
co C
4J 0) O
cd 4J c6
M-I I
CO <J <4-l
HI O
T) T3 I
3 C -U
U cd 3
o
c
O C O C
os & o
C -H
i-l 01 O 4J
cd co 1-1 cd
u cd co i-i
H J2 3 3
4-1 P-i i-l O
M I O i-l
o) c c cd
> M I-l CJ
vO

00
H
( oi x NO W3d-oi->iv3d43anindwv
fa
I
o
IO CVJ
o O
101
0)
c
H 4J 4J
VI 3 J3
O 00
C J2 i-l
M -U 0)
c c
O T3 O
H C -H
4-> Cd 4-J
H U
T3 .C CO
C 4-1 M
O -H I-l
U 3 O
cd a 4-l
0) O
O T3 I
3 C! 4J
S "cB
?-l x-s
a co 4J
s y y-i
<3 c td
cd jn
|J t-l CO
o cd
4J JZ M-l CO
O C O C
os o o
C -H
i-l CO O 4J
cd co 1-1 cd
O tO CD r-l
H 43 3 3
4J cu i-i y
Jj i y 1-1
cu c c cd
> M M CJ
00
( oi x NO >iv3d-oi->iv3d'3anindwv
1 i 1 i
m
r^-
o
to
m
CNJ
0
o o o
uoiod
OJ
c
H 4-1 4J
hJ 3 JS
I O 60
C f. -r4
M 4-1 CD
c: c
0 -a o
H d -H
4J CO 4J
H o
o .r <ii
d 4J n
O -H (-1
cj Is o
u
1-1
CO d CU
>-l 3
4J Pi 4-1
H
d 00 d
M d -i-i
H
1 O CO
d -u
o m w
H to
4-1 O 0)
cfl C C
M O T3
CO C
^ 3
4J 0) O
Cfl 4J Pd
y-i i
co <; M-I
0) O
a T3 i
3 C
cd 3
O
e
<3
M i-l CO
o co
4-1 JD U-l W
o d o d
03 3 o
c
0) o
CO co
O cfl co i-l
H J3 3 3
4J dl rH O
M I U i-l
 1-1 M CJ
00
m
00
uoiou
10
U010U 103
0)
B
H 4J 4J
iJ 3 J3
I O 00
a ,E -H
M 4J OJ
^^ ^H 5
B B
O T3 O
H B -H
4-1 Cd -U
H O
ri r* q)
B 4J H
O i-l ^
CJ S O
B 0)
3, J3
C t>0 C
M C -H
H
i o eg
C W
<) cd cd
!-) Q
C cd
o pa w
H w
w v ID
cd C B
WOT)
CA B
H 3
4-1 0) O
Cd 4J tt5
4-1 I
en <j <4-i
0) O
o -a i
3 B *-i
5 c
cd J2
h i-l W
o cd
U J3 IW CO
O B O B
erf & o
B i-l
1-4 0) O 4J
Cd CO -H Cd
u cd co i-i
H J2 3 3
U fl< f-4 O
M I O f-l
0) B B cd
> M M tj
m
.
00
1-1
( oi x NO w3d-oi-MV3d'3anindwv fa
I I _J
IO o IO
CVI
O
IO
O o
104 dOlOd
 B C
O -o
4-1 C
cd V4 3
CU O
co 4-* r**!
O < <4-l
3 O
4J T3 I
H C 4-1
i-l Cd 3
CL CJ
<2 a; 4J
om
j-i c cd
o cd 4=
4J ^-t CO
0 ^0
01 J3 M-l CO
C O C
cd C -H
4-1 <1) O 4->
C co 1-1 cd
O Cd CO i-l
N J3 3 3
H pL4 r-l CJ
Vl I CJ i-l
O C C cd
SS M M O
o
vO
60
( 01 x NO xv3d-oi^v3d 'aonindiw
U)
yoioa 105
A= UNBALANCE VECTORS
B = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER ONE
BALANCING RUN WITH TRIAL WEIGHTS IN 0
ONLY AND OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS DATA
. INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS
Fig. 61 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With
106 In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance and Trial Weights in Zero-Degree
Location Only MTI-l
A'
i
* \ A = UNBALANCE VECTORS
\ A'= NEGATIVE UNBALANCE VECTORS

B = CORRECTION WEIGHT VECTORS AFTER ONE
BALANCING RUN WITH TRIAL WEIGHTS IN 180
ONLY AND OUT-OF-ROUNDNESS DATA
\ INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS
\
.8
\
\
.6,
\
A'
B,
^^*
Fig. 62 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With
In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance and Trial Weights in 180-Degree
Location Only
107
MTI-13181
BEARINGS BRANCH AERONAUTICS CONTRACTS
Final Report Distribution List
Attention: Attention: Library

Project Manager, MS 6-1 NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
(10 4- reproducible) Houston, Texas 77058
A. Ginsburg, MS 5-3
E.E. Bisson, MS 5-3 Attention: Library
W.J. Anderson, MS 23-2 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
R.L. Johnson, MS 23-2 Marshall Space Flight Center,
B. Lubarsky, MS 3-3 Alabama 35812
D.G. Beremand, MS 500-202
L.W. Schopen, MS 500-206 Attention: N.F. Rekos (RL)
C.H. Voit, MS 5-3 W. Roudebush (RNP)
D.W. Drier, MS 21-4 NASA Headquarters
Report Control Office, MS 5-5 Washington, D.C-. 20546
Library, MS 60-3
Reliability & Quality Assurance Attention: Library
Office, MS 500-111 Aerojet-General Corporation
Technology Utilization Office, 1100 West Hollyvale
MS 3-19 Azusa, California 91702
Plans and Programs Office,
MS 3-15 Attention: Library
NASA Lewis Research Center Aerojet-General Corporation
21000 Brookpark Road Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Sacramento, California 98509
National Technical Information Service (40) Attention: Library

Springfield, Virginia 22151 Aerospace Corporation
P.O. Box 95085
Attention: .Library Los Angeles, California 91745
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035 Attention: Library (1)
Lyle Six (1)
Attention: Library AiResearch Manufacturing Company
NASA Flight Research Center 402 South 36 Street
P. 0. Box 273 Phoenix, Arizona 85034
Edwards, California 93523
Attention: Library
Attention: Library AiResearch Manufacturing Company
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 9851 Sepulveda Boulevard
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 Los Angeles, California 90009
Attention: Library Attention: N. Grossman

Jet ;-Propulsion Laboratory Atomic Energy Commission
4800 Oak Grove Drive Division of Reactor Development
Pasadena, California 91103 and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20767
Attention: Library
NASA Langley Research.Center
Langley Station
Hampton, Virginia 23365
108
Attention; N. Gerstein Attention: E:.N. Bamberger
Atomic Energy Commission General Electric Company
AEC-NASA Space Nuclear.'Systems Office Aircraft Engine Technical Division
Washington, D.C. 20545 Bearings, Fuels and Lubricants
Evendale, Ohio 45215
:
Attention: . Library (I) ' '
CM. Allen (1) Commanding General
Battelle Memorial Institute US. Army Aviation Systems Command
Columbus Laboratories Attn: Dr. James Chevalier
505 King Avenue Mail Stop AMC PM-HLS
Columbus, Ohio 43201 P.O. Box 209
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Attention; Library
Bendix Research Labs Division Attention: Library
Detroit, Michigan 48232 General Electric Company
Mechanical Technology Laboratory
Attention: Library R & D Center
Boeing Company Schenectady, New York 12301
Aerospace Division
P.O. Box 3707 Attention: Library
Seattle, Washington 98124 General Motors Corporation
Allison Division
Attention: Library (1) Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
R, Gabel (1)
Boeing Company Attention: Library
Vertol Division, Boeing Center Hughes Aircraft Corporation
P.O. Box 16858 Centinda & Teale Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 Culver City, California 90230
Attention: Library Attention: Library

Continental Aviation and Engineering Corp, Institute for Defense Analyses
12700 Kercheval Avenue 400 Army-Navy Drive
Detroit, Michigan 48215 Arlingtons Virginia 22202
Attention: Library Attention: Library

Curtiss-Wright Corporation Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
Wright Aero Division P.O. Box 504
Main & Passaic Streets Sunnyvale, California 94088
Woodridge, New Jersey 07075
Attention: Library
Attention: Jeffrey V. LeGrow Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MSTG Department Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
General Electric Company
Lynn,. Massachusetts Attention: Library
Mechanical Technology Incorporated
Attention: W. Shapiro 968 Albany-Shaker Road
Franklin Institute Research Labs Latham, New York 12110
Benjamin Franklin Pkwy. at 20th St.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
109
Attention: Library Attention: Dr. Paul Trumpler,
National Science Foundation President
Engineering Division Turbo Research Incorporated
1800 G. Street, N.W. Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
Washington, B.C. 20540
Attention: Prof. D.F. Muster
Attention: S.M. Collegeman AIR 5365A Department of Mechanical Engineering
Naval Air Systems Command University of Houston
Washington, B.C. 20360 Houston, Texas 77004
Attention: W.C. Lindstrom NSC 613B4B Attention: W. Crim

Naval Ship Engineering Center U.S. Army Engineering R & D Labs
Washington, B.C. 20360 Gas Turbine Test Facility
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060
Attention: W.V. Smith
Naval Ship Research & Development Center Attention: D, Hibner (1)
Annapolis Division Library (1)
Annapolis, Maryland 21402 United Aircraft Corporation
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division
Attention: J.E. Dray SNHIP 6148 400 Main Street
Naval Ship Systems Command East Hartford, Connecticut 06108
Washington, B.C. 20360
Attention: P.E. Maedel, Jr.
Attention: F.A. Shen Development Engineering
North American Rockwell Steam Division
6633 Canoga Avenue Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Canoga Park, California 91304 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Attention: Library Attention: Lester Burroughs

North American Rockwell Corporation United Aircraft Corporation
Space Division Sikorsky Aircraft Division
12214 Lakewood Boulevard Stratford, Connecticut 06497
Downey, California 90241
Attention: R. Givens
Attention: S.W. Doroff ONR/463 SAVFE-AS
Office of Naval Research U.S. Army Air Mobility R&D Labs
Washington., B.C. 20360 Ft. Eustis, Virginia 23604
Attention: Library Attention: Dr. E.J. Gunter

Sundstrand Benver Department of Mechanical Engineering
2480 West 70 Avenue University of Virginia
Denver, Colorado 80221 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Attention: Library Attention: E.A. Lake

TRW Accessories Division Air Force Aero Propulsion
23555 Euclid Avenue Laboratory (AFSC)
Cleveland, Ohio 44117 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio 45433
Attention: Harold Simmons

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
110 Florida Research & Development Center
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

19730005750

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

19730005750

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

&!>.

FLEXIBLE ROTOR BALANCING BY

MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

William J. Anderson, Chief

This report was prepared as an account of Government-sponsored work. Neither

A.) Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with

Requests for copies of this report should be referred to

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)l 18. Distribution Statement

Flexible Rotor Balancing, Computer Methods Unclassified-unlimited

The investigation reported herein was performed by Mechanical Technology

Both balancing procedures were evaluated for several different conditions of

The Least Squares procedure was found to be generally equivalent in capability

20 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition

21 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 2 - Initial Condition

22 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 3 - Initial Condition

23 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

24 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4.- Initial Condition

25 Second Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, In-Phase Unbalance. . . . 70

26 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition

27 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 2 - Initial Condition

28 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 3 - Initial Condition

29 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

30> Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4.- Initial Condition

31 Third Test Case: Rotor With In-Line, Out-Of-Phase Unbalance . . 76

32 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station I - Initial -Condition

33 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station 2 - Initial Condition (In-

34 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station 3 - Initial Condition (In-

35 Vertical Rotor Amplitude at Station 4 - Initial Condition (In-

36 Fourth Test Case: Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance 81

37 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition of

38 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 2 - Initial Condition of

39 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 3 - Initial Condition of

40 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition of

41 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

42 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Vertical Maximum

43 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Vertical Maximum

44 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Vertical Maximum

45 Phase Angle Between Reference Signal and Vertical Maximum

47 Two-Mass Rotor With Conical Unbalance - With and Without Out-

48 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition of

49 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 5 - Initial Condition of

50 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 2 - Initial Condition of

51 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 3 - Initial Condition of

52 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition of

53 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

54 Unbalance Vectors and Correction Weight Vectors For Test Rotor

55 Unbalance Vectors and Correction Weight Vectors For Test Rotor

56 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 1 - Initial Condition (In-

57 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 2 - Initial Condition

58 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 3 - Initial Condition

59 Vertical Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

60 Horizontal Rotor Amplitudes at Station 4 - Initial Condition

61 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With

62 Unbalance and Correction Weight Vectors for Test Rotor With

I Balance Improvement for First Test Case: Rotor with

II Balance Improvement for First Test Case: Rotor with

III Balance Improvement for Second Test Case: Rotor with

IV Balance Improvement for Third Test Case: Rotor with

V Balance Improvement for Two-Mass Rotor with Conical

VI Balance Improvement for Two-Mass Rotor with Conical