See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293795081

Support Vibration Diagnostics and Limits in Gas Turbines

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1115/GT2016-56548

CITATIONS READS

0 875

3 authors, including:

Marcin Bielecki
General Electric
11 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcin Bielecki on 23 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition
SUPPORT VIBRATION DIAGNOSTICS AND LIMITS
IN GAS TURBINES
Marcin Bielecki
Senior Engineer
GE Oil & Gas - Engineering Design Center
Warsaw, Poland
Piotr Gebalski
Senior Engineer
GE Oil & Gas - Engineering Design Center
Warsaw, Poland
ABSTRACT
The paper deliberates vibration limits for non-rotating parts in
application to industrial gas turbines. As a rule such limits
follow ISO 10816-4 or API616, although in field operation it is
not well known relationship between these limits and failure
modes. In many situations, the reliability function is not well-
defined, and more comprehensive methods of determining the
harmful effects of support vibrations are desirable.
In the first part, the undertaken approach and the results are
illustrated based on the field and theoretical experience of the
authors about the failure modes related to alarm level of
vibrations. Here several failure modes and diagnostics
observations are illustrated with the examples of real-life data.
In the second part, a statistical approach based on correlation of
support vs. shaft vibrations (velocity / displacement) is
demonstrated in order to assess the risk of the bearing rub. The
test data for few gas turbine models produced by General
Electric Oil & Gas are statistically evaluated and allow to draw
an experimentally based transfer function between vibrations
recorded by non-contact and seismic probes. Then the vibration
limit with objectives like bearing rub is scrutinized with aid of
probabilistic tools. In the third part, the attention is given to a
few examples of the support vibrations – among other gas
turbine with rotors supported on flexible pedestals and
baseplate. Here there is determined a transfer coefficient
between baseplate and bearing vibrations for specific foundation
configurations. Based on the test data screening as well as
analysis and case studies thereof, the conclusions about more
specific vibration limits in relation to the failure modes are
drawn.
GT2016
June 13-17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea
GT2016-56548
Salvatore Costagliola
GT Engineering Manager
GE Oil & Gas – Nuovo Pignone
Florence, Italy
INTRODUCTION
Support vibration become an issue in daily operation, once
detected by seismic probes or velocitimeters installed on bearing
housing, casing or support frame [2,4,10,11,28,40].
Conventionally they are expressed by velocity in mm or inch per
second (mm/sec, ips) as well as optionally by integrated
deflection in mils or microns. Of course majority of the heavy
duty gas turbines have also installed non-contact probes to
measure the shaft vibrations relative to a Fluid Film Bearing
(FFB), nevertheless the support vibrations are chosen most
frequently to set up the alarm and trip limits, while non-contact
probes installed as optional and mostly reporting only alarms.
From reliability point of view the non-roting parts vibrations are
most important here, because most directly determine acceptable
or non acceptable machine conditions, if compared with the
industrial standards. Conditional monitoring for aero-derivative
turbines with roller element bearings calls almost exclusively for
vibrations taken usually at supporting frames (optionally casing),
due to the minute shaft-to-bearing movement, what is an effect
of a small bearing clearance as well as their high stiffness.
Considering above, these vibrations are surprisingly not as
popular topic of the research and scientific papers as other
aspects of rotordynamics. Due to the fact that the support sensors
rarely measure vibrations caused by aerodynamic forces in flow
path, blade-tip rub and pressure pulsation in combustor; the
paper pays attention mostly to rotor-bearing-support interactions.
VIBRATION LIMITS IN DESIGN CODES
While the turbomachinery condition evaluation started to take
form in the 1960’s, the first documented chart was the Rathbone
1
Chart (fig. 1) which was first published in 1939 [27]. Although duty GT [23], while for aeroderivative GT is roughly around 108
the chart plots vibration amplitude versus frequency, it was N/m, so that one magnitude is lower than for heavy duty GT. To
supposed to be applicable for seismic measures from the bearing address this problem, it would be reasonable in next edition of
cap or machine structure. Later there was proposed a modified API616, to differentiate acceptance criteria for class 3 (rigid
chart ([5], fig. 1), which could be customized to specific machine supports) and 4 (soft supports).
and conditions by so-called Service Factor Sf with example
values for gas turbines [10, 25]: Typically the support stiffness in horizontal direction is smaller
• 1.12 filtered vibrations near running speed for GT on than on vertical direction, hence the support vibrations in
flexible supports horizontal direction are likely to be higher than on vertical, if the
• 1.36 unfiltered vibrations near running speed bearing stiffness is same on both directions (e.g. for roller
• 3.5 high frequency blade vibration sources element or load-between-pad tilted pad bearings). This can one
• 3.3 unstable or self-excited vibration sources of the reasons, why seismic probes or velocitmeters are installed
• 0.7 rigid rotors on rigid foundations on vertical direction preferably. However most of the properly
Allowable limits as on chart (fig. 1) should be compared with loaded FFB show 2 to 5 times lower stiffness in horizontal
vibration measured on the bearing housing and increased by the direction than vertical. Assuming similar support stiffness in
above service factors. both directions (as frequently happens for rigid supports), the
bearing reactions on vertical direction are higher. In such case
Nowadays, the support vibration limits in application to installation of the seismic probes on vertical direction is more
industrial gas turbines (IGT) are not any more restrictive and conservative approach.
usually follow the ISO 10816-4:2009 “Mechanical vibration -
Evaluation of machine vibration by measurements on non-
rotating parts, Part 4: Gas turbine sets with fluid-film bearings”.
Also at present the API616 standard of American Petroleum
Institute for gas turbine industry is compliant with the ISO
10816-4. The IGT should have vibrations as defined for class 3
of ISO 10816 i.e. by default its supports are regarded as rigid.
Presumption that the supports are rigid is not always correct. As
a matter of fact, an overhang support configurations are typical
for compressor inlets and power turbines (i.e. low pressure),
which are preferred in a hot-end-drive IGT. This kind of
configuration, almost always should classify the support in
category “flexible” [30,36,40]. Also oil & gas industry mounts
the gas turbines on offshore platforms, what requires light
baseplates and flexible frame supports. Although excluded from
ISO 10816 part 4 the aero-derivative gas turbines (utilizing
REB) almost always require flexible support, because originally
have been designed to be mounted under the wings and still they
are by default suspended from the enclosure frame. Due to the
fact that the REB are of very high stiffness and small clearance,
the rotordynamic systems are always enhanced with an elastic
support structures and additional squeeze film dampers.

Deliberating the issue of the support flexibility in detail, a

vigilant reader can find differentiation between rigid and flexible
support in ISO 10816 part 3: “These support conditions are
determined by the relationship between the machine and
foundation flexibilities. If the lowest natural frequency of the
combined machine and support system in the direction of
measurement is higher than its main excitation frequency (this is
in most cases the rotational frequency) by at least 25 %, then the Fig. 1. Vibration criteria for rotating machinery [5]. The
support system may be considered rigid in that direction. All vibrations measured on gas turbines bearing housings should be
other support systems may be considered flexible.” The compared with the chart after multiplication by service factor Sf
screening of the IGT supports of the General Electric fleet (see (values in the text).
table 5 in the Appendix) shows that actually around 70% of the
bearing – support systems could fall in category “flexible Summary of the limits can be found in the table 1. In general, the
support”, what practically means that almost each turbine has limits for factory tests and commissioning are established based
flexible support in some form. The support stiffness, if the on expected satisfactory behavior of FFB and acceptable lateral
bearing centerline is directly at the pedestal center (i.e. no response i.e. preferred dominant synchronous response,
overhung configuration), reaches 109 N/m to 1010 N/m for heavy avoidance of fluid film instability or rub on bearings and seals.

2
 Alarm - Zone C Trip - Zone D likely mix of synchronous and non-synchronous signals). While
RPM 3000 10000 3000 10000 in case of the non-harmonic response including short pulsating
Rathbone chart >9.1 >7.3 >17.3 >15.2 signals the proportion of zero-peak value to RMS can be
Blake chart incl. significantly higher [6,7,28]. This observation is well known in
GT Service Fac tors 2.9 - 8.7 2.2 - 5.1 8.7 - 24.9 5.1- 9.0
diagnostics of roller element bearings, where the crest factor CF
API 616 & ISO 10816-4 9.3 - 14.7 >14.7
can reach level of more than 10 for malfunctioning bearings with
Table1. Support vibration ranges [mm/s RMS, unfiltered] for
progressing damage. Actually the use of the crest factor in REB
IGT measured at bearing housing as recommended by
diagnostics is simple method to measure how “peaky” is the
[1,2,5,10,25,27].
signal. The idea behind is, that most of defects in REB are
causing impacts, impacts are making the signal peaky and this
VIBRATION DIAGNOSTICS
increases the ratio of the zero-peak value to RMS value. So, if
somebody is trending the crest factor, than is getting some
As mentioned in the Introduction, the bearing housing, support
warning on impulses.
frame or casing vibrations are detected by velocity transducer or
seismic probes [10,11,20,40,41,42]. The first is an electro-
Diagnostics with the aid of the crest factor is not popular
mechanical transducer, typically of inertial design, able to
measurement for FFB. It is because, that even if there is a
measure vibration in frequency range 1 to 2000 Hz. The second -
vibration problem, which manifests itself by generation of
and less popular in gas turbines - contains a piezoelectric crystal
impulses - for instance partial rub - there are more interesting
(accelerometer) with a built-in amplifier and integrator with
and direct techniques available like orbit / time-base shape, shaft
capability to measure up to 20000 Hz. Typical the vibrations are
centerline position, full spectrum and bearing metal temperature
taken with filtered signal during RMS processing and high
than observation of the crest factor. The author experience with
frequency signals are muted [11,41,28]. This approach is
FFB shows that the conditions like rub, whirl or whip can only
compliant with ISO 10816-4 or API616 requirements, which
partly be detected by support vibrations based on the proportion
states in point 4.7.5.2 "The RMS measurement is broadband
of RMS to 0-peak values. Actually only practical application of
vibration over a frequency range from 10 Hz to at least 500 Hz
CF seems be the situation, when non-contact probes are not
or six times the maximum normal operating speed, whichever is
installed and entire diagnostics must use every piece of
greater". Most of aerodynamic excitations are of high
information from the data acquisition system.
frequencies, even up to 15 kHz [38,39] i.e. usually well above
sixth harmonic. This kind of vibrations can be more effectively
CAUSES OF HIGH VIBRATIONS ON SUPPORTS
measured by pressure transducers or microphones [38,39,42].
Other sensors are installed on the compressor rear frames to
The failure modes related to non-rotating parts vibration can be
monitor pressure pulsations in low emission combustion systems
split in cause or effect phenomena – table 2. Most often causes
(“Humming Detection”). The frequency of such pulsations is
are, if neglected aeromechanic forces and airfoil rub, by some
usually not any direct proportion of rotation speed, but due to the
means related to rotor vibrations, bearing malfunction or
fact that is usually in frequency range 10 – 600 Hz they can
unexpected support modes. The presumption is here, that the
overlap rotor induced vibrations [3,28].
high bearing reactions generate forces shifting the support and
subsequently the support vibrations signal as forced response.
The measured signal is processed to the direct amplitude (i.e.
Such interaction can be more precisely detected by non-contact
zero – peak value) or the Root Mean Square (RMS) values. Here
probes, if they are installed. A comprehensive review of lateral
one should mention up-front some possible linguistic issue in
rotor behavior affecting support vibration can be found in [4, 10,
interpretation about the abbreviation DA, which is in frequent
21,28,31,41; with summary in left column of table 2].
use. For probably most people in the turbo-machinery industry it
means the Direct Amplitude i.e. zero-peak value, but for some
Assuming that the vibration forcing function originates in the
(like engineers from General Electric and Bently-Nevada) it is
rotor (e.g. unbalance), the contingency of the support vibration
the Double Amplitude i.e. peak-to-peak value. Hence discussing
depends first of all how much rotor vibration is transmitted
the DA, it is always better ask about its meaning. The
trough the bearings. Of course this effect is determined by how
relationship between zero-peak value and RMS is expressed with
well the machine is mounted to the foundation. It can change, if
aid of so-called crest factor CF, that can be an auxiliary
the turbine support weakens e.g. by crack propagation or loosens
diagnostic feature:
i.e. machine develops a “soft foot”. Other scenario can be, when
a rotor is at high eccentricity ratio. In such case the very high
V0− pk fluid-film stiffness of the bearing more effectively couples the
CF = (1)
rotor to the bearing. Thus, a misaligned machine or under
VRMS
increased radial load, the unit may experience higher than
normal stator vibrations. Shaft relative vibration, due to the
In general, when vibration are generated in linear system with increased constraint on the rotor, may decrease as more of the
harmonic response (sinus function of time domain), the RMS vibration energy is transmitted to the support. Concurrently the
value is proportional to zero-peak value divided by crest factor misalignment frequently generates super-synchronous (2X)
CF = 21/2 = ~1.414. Typical range of CF values is 1.0 to 1.8 for signal with two times higher velocity than synchronous (1X), if
supports with FFB in good conditions and as long CF is below with same amplitude of deflections. As results the misalignment
3.0, the prevailing character of vibrations is sinusoidal (most is effectively observable by the seismic probes. Next cause,
3
which affects support vibration, is a rub around the rotor (seals,
bearing or casing distortion). A heavy rub can severely constrain
the rotor and reduce the synchronous (1X) shaft vibration, while
results in more energy transfer to the machine casing (at rub
location, what can be as well as out of the bearing support),
causing an increase in non-synchronous stator vibrations with
significant share of harmonics 2X and 1/2X [4, 33,37,41],
because of different stiffness in horizontal and vertical directions
for horizontal split casings or Morton effect.
Causes Effects
- Rotor unbalance - Wear and high cyclic fatigue of the
- Shaft line misalignment hardware installed at casing and support
- Rub at bearing or seals - Crack propagation in the support or
- Coupling failure baseplate
- Looseness of the support - Foundation distress, baseplate
("soft foot") settlement, support stiffness reduction
- Casing distortion (next speed margine reduced, created
- Rotating stall in compressor misalignment or "soft foot")
- Fluid film instability - Static structure born noise
- Blade tip rub - Human exposure to vibrations
- Combustion pressure - Performance loss due to rub, open
pulsation clearance and seal leakages
- Lost calibration of instruments
Table 2. Typical causes of excessive stationary parts vibrations
and its likely effects.
FAILURE MODES RELATED TO HIGH STATOR
VIBRATIONS
Independently of what are the origins of support or casing
vibrations, they can be harmful to the turbine systems and
components – see the examples in the right column of table 2.
The reliability study [20] on aero-derivative turbines in operation
by US Navy listed that the effects of long and short term engine
vibration can include:
• Power turbine case vane rail wear.
• Turbine mid-frame liner clocking.
• Fuel manifold Y-tube breakage.
• High pressure turbine oil tube looseness.
• Wear and breakage of the many engine mounted clamps and
tubes.
• Worn or lose accessory gearbox support links.
• Worn variable stator vane components.
• Worn or damaged combustor components.
• Higher than desired structure-borne noise.
That kind of failures or functional issues were observed before
the allowable limits on gas generator were lowered to: alarm
18.8 mm/s RMS at 5000 RPM to 42.3 mm/sec RMS at 9000
RPM, trip 7 mils pk-pk = 178 microns pk-pk. Then further effort
in maintenance procedures and improvement in field balancing
process vastly eliminated most of above issues. Noticeable, that
none of these listed malfunctions was related to high rotor
vibrations originating rub, seal degradation or loss of
performance. The cause-and-effect like this of course can take
place, but most the seals on flow path in gas turbines is designed
the way that they can accommodate large relative rotor-stator
movement due to the thermal growth (2 mm is not surprising
value), so that additional vibrations like 100 microns do not open
clearances a lot and actual change in leakage is hardly
observable in performance.
Recently a test performed on one gas turbine of General Electric
has proved (results not published yet) that the turbine was able to
operate at vibrations as high as 56 mm/sec RMS for a longer
time period (i.e. generating at least 107 vibratory cycles to the
turbine support structure). The test was set-up on fully equipped
turbine and created artificial conditions of very high unbalance,
equivalent to the loss of few blades in medium stages of the high
pressure compressor. This caused the HP rotor unbalance and
support vibrations at steady state on levels indicated above. Peak
vibrations 56 mm/sec RMS reached 87% of trip threshold and
most likely approached allowable deflection on a squeeze film
damper. The test was successful and proved full operability of
the gas turbine in all loading conditions with minor issues
reported in post-inspections:
• Brackets of some piping attached to casings showed wear and
one bolt was missed.
• Electric connector of auxiliary hardware had broken pin
• Accelerated damage of wrongly assembled connector
The inspection has not revealed neither signs of bearing wear nor
oil contamination. Also the compressor after so heavy unbalance
showed no signs of rubs or seals degradation. Practically
observed change in turbine performance (which can be
considered marginal) was accounted much more to blade fouling
than the vibration-driven damages.
The failure modes caused by high vibrations are related mostly
to the high cyclic fatigue (HCF) or wear of the equipment
installed on the casing or turbine support. Many of the piping
items of the auxiliary system in oil & gas as well as process
industries are allowed for continuous field operation by one of
below targets:
• API618 [16] limits to 11.3 mm/s RMS for frequency range
10 – 200 Hz
• VKI 3842 [17] limits to 10 mm/sec RMS at 10 Hz with
ramp to 50 mm/sec for 200 Hz
• ASME 76-PET-18 [18] limits to 9 mm/sec RMS at 10 Hz
with ramp to 39.5 mm/sec for 200 Hz
It is anticipated that these values should not cause the piping
distress by HCF [24], although they indirectly assume, that the
excitation is displacement driven. It is correct assumption for
many items, but not the best one for components fully or
dominantly installed to the casing like cooling piping connecting
compressor with turbine or combustors. For such configurations
the vibrations are virtually acceleration driven and the
acceptance criteria should be rather expresses in acceleration
unit. Nevertheless, the velocity criteria look as most universal.
The study [19] of failure of auxiliary tubing show that above
piping limits are genuinely rational for gas turbines, because root
causes of fatigue here were externally induced vibrations via
supports, when auxiliary piping was connected to casing surfaces
with velocity above ~15 mm/sec RMS for frequency in range 80
– 150 Hz. The special vibrations limits can be also applied on
mounting points of the combustor system, which as thin walled
structures are vibration sensitive. Because combustion process
dynamics is a basic excitations for combustor liners, they
undergo dedicated design for vibration-driven fatigue.
In vast majority of cases, the HCF excited by unbalance driven
vibrations (i.e. 1X) is at low risk and does not put in jeopardy the
4
support integrity. It is because, supports and casings are designed
to survive the blade out event (one or more airfoils), what calls
for meeting yield criteria in emergency load case. This allows
alongside to reach high design margins for fatigue as design
shaking load is 5-10% of blade-out load, even if the pedestal
nominal load includes dead load, turbine thermal growth and
torque generated on vanes and nozzles. A unpublished authors
study for a typical fabricated support under the GT compressor
inlet showed, that the bearing dynamic reaction could reach up to
3.8 times of static rotor load on the bearing due to the risk of
crack initiation and propagation. At the same time, such high
level of the unbalance would generate extreme shaft vibration -
exceeding a rub limit and triggering the trip due to the high shaft
or support vibrations. On the other hand more prone to failure
under extreme vibrations can be oil pipe connections as reported
in [43]. Other internal GE study on a fatigue analysis of a thin
walled compressor casing also revealed negligible possibility of
HCF. Here the HPC rotor unbalance force is transferred through
the bearing between HP compressor and turbine to the casing
and generates its bending. The high stress areas, sensitive to
bending moment, were features like flanges, borescope port and
bleed air extraction ports. Comparison of alternating stresses
with endurance limit for casted casing, demonstrates that the
casing vibration could be almost 200 mm/sec RMS to initiate
high cycle fatigue cracking. Beside these observations, some
customers operating turbines in very cold conditions concern
about risk of fatigue and crack propagation in very low ambient
temperature. From this reason they may want to reduce trip limit
during cold start-up to lower level for example from 12.7 to 5.6
mm/sec RMS like in the study presented in [8].
FUNCTIONAL VIBRATION LIMITS
Because a bearing forced response can travel also through the
baseplate and foundation to adjacent more sensitive hardware
(e.g. oil tanks, lube system piping, control system), most of
foundations have assigned specific limitations due to design
limits (concrete block, steel frame, possible interaction with soil,
etc.; [24]). This can force the turbine operator sometime to limit
vibration on the top of baseplate to 5 – 20 microns [21 - 26],
with usually lower value for concrete foundations and higher for
steel frames. Most of OEMs try to make baseplate and
foundation stiff enough to reduce vibration here to value e.g.
several time less than the standard design limit for shaft relative
vibrations per API:
12000
U = 25.4 ⋅ [microns pk-pk] (2)
N a support is in category “rigid”, what as already mentioned is not
Other functional requirements for vibrations transferred to the
baseplate, foundation and adjacent ground can be set up by the
EHS regulation for occupational safety [41]. Examples of the
limitations can be a whole-body vibrations (WBV) - problematic
in frequencies below 80 Hz [15,41] - as well as structure-born
noise in audible range, which in case of synchronous frequency
is difficult to insulate. The impact of vibration on workers is
addressed in general standards like ISO 2631 [13], ASTM
F1166 [12] (less restrictive than ISO 2631) or industry specific
like ISO 6954 for ships [14] – the last most restrictive of them.
E.g. military ships should generate as low as possible noise in
order to avoid identification by enemy [29] or some sensitive
diagnostics equipment installed in hospital and laboratories can
require very low ground vibrations, what can be challenging, if a
power plant is less than 300 meters away [32]. Dependently on
regulation, such special applications can require the operator to
keep ground vibration (areas where workers can stay or sit) to
less than 1 mm/sec RMS, although in most cases 2.5 mm/sec
RMS will be requested, if the workers are allowed to stay up to
30 min around the operating turbine. Also the WBV regulations
may allow that horizontal vibration limits are three time less
stringent as for vertical direction.
Comparison of some discussed above functional limits is shown
on fig. 2. Because all these limits are indirect, they can be
considered as basis for set up of alarm level vibrations as
measured on turbine by condition monitoring system. As visible
in many cases the baseplate synchronous vibration is expected to
stay below ~2 mm/sec RMS for large GT (with operating speed
3000 – 3600 RPM) in land application and ~3.5 mm/sec RMS in
most of offshore application, where the operating speed is 6000
RPM and more. Also it is visible, that velocity limits due to the
EHS can be more demanding for sub-synchronous signal and
less restrictive for super-synchronous signals.
15
14
13
12
11
Baseplate velocity limits .
10 Whole-body vibrations - 1/2 hr exposure (ISO 2631)
[mm/sec RMS]
9 Whole body vibrations - 8 hr exposure (ISO 2631)
8 Habitability on ships - working area (ISO 6954)
Foundation integrity - OEM limit based on API
7
6
Foundation integrity - steel frame (DVN RP-C203)
Foundation integrity - concrete (civil eng. codes)
5 Auxiliary piping support design limits
4
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Frequency [Hz]
Fig. 2. Comparison of some design targets applicable for
baseplate or foundation vibrations.
NON-SYNCHRONOUS VIBRATIONS LIMITS
A common question in rotor system diagnostics is how much
Non-Synchronous Vibration (NSV) is acceptable? The API 616
says that “any non-synchronous discrete vibration shall not
exceed 20 % of the synchronous vibration magnitude”. However
it should be point out, that this recommendation is compelling, if
applicable for most of IGT. There are also published
recommendations (e.g. [11]) about sub-synchronous magnitude
limits for shaft and support vibrations specific to percentage of
the synchronous (optionally total) signal magnitude. This
approach is compatible with implementation of the service
factors Sf [10,25] discussed in previous section. List of
recommended limits for NSV is shown in table 3. Such stringent
limits anticipate the fact that the NSV are caused either by fluid
film instability, which actual response and amplification factor
are very sensitive and erratic to the operating conditions (e.g. oil
5
temperature, bearing static load) or the rub i.e. journal and pad
are worn and the major damage is approaching.
Relative shaft Absolute casing
Band Alarm Trip Alarm Trip
Subsynchronous <1X 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.25
Synchronous 1X 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Supersynchronous 2X 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40
Supersynchronous 3-5X 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50
Table 3. Summary of band alarm recommendation [10,11,25]
excluding support modes. Numbers show acceptable share of the
band in overall (direct) vibration breakdown.
It should be pointed out, that beside the non-synchronous modes
visible on support as result of rotor-bearing interaction, it is
possible, that the natural mode for support itself can generates a
NSV signal. It can be detected on a waterfall plot, as frequency
independent on rotor speed – see also Example 1. This mode is
most likely observable in sub-synchronous range for flexible
support, because designers avoid leaving such mode close to
maximum operating speed, due to the high energy transferred to
the support system. It can be easily detected by comparison of
displacement amplitudes of relative shaft and absolute support
vibrations. If second is similar or exceeds the first, the support
mode is most likely present and further phase angle and vector
change can confirm this probability.
CORRELATION BETWEEN BEARING AND SHAFT
VIBRATIONS FOR FLUID FILM BEARINGS
The basic input for a statistical assessment of the support
vibration versus rotor-bearing conditions can be results of
mechanical running tests. 600 of such tests were performed on
four types of new or refurbished gas turbines produced by
General Electric. It is important here, that they are carried out in
controlled conditions i.e. oil temperature is almost same, rotor
and bearings are in good conditions, supports are identical, kept
same speed (either 100 or 105%), negligible non-synchronous
vibrations. Virtually the turbines are different by residual
unbalance and bearing clearance. Tested turbines with FFB and
cover power range 5 - 32 MW and speed range 4900 - 11100
RPM – their description in the Appendix, table 5. Following data
have been collected for each bearing: 1) max direct relative shaft
vibrations, 2) absolute vibrations measured on bearing cap. The
test results presented in the figure 3 on Y axis are non-
dimensional proportion of the maximum relative shaft vibration
to assembly diametric bearing clearance i.e. Upk-pk/(2*Cb). This
non-dimensional parameter was proposed in [2], in order to
quantify the risk of bearing rub under vibration i.e. Upk-pk/(2*Cb)
= 0.0 means no risk of rub induced by vibrations, while = 1.0
represents extreme vibration conditions where rub occurs with
100% likelihood at bearing (if neglected thermal change of
clearance and hydrodynamic driven eccentricity). Red points
represent the supports with elliptic bearings, blue ones with
tilting pad bearings. The plotted trend lines represent
approximation of the recorded data points with following best-fit
functions (velocity in mm/sec RMS):
0.0775 ⋅VRMS
U pk − pk 0.434
for 50% ( average) trendline
=  (3)
2 ⋅ Cb  0.1861⋅VRMS
0.434
for 99% (upper ) trendline 
Considering statistical variation of both parameters one can
expect that the shaft vibration should stay below rub limit. Let
simplify such limit to the assembly clearance reduced by the
eccentricity at nominal speed. Practically and on average for
seven bearings evaluated here, the rub conditions should here
limit the relative shaft vibration to about 77% of nominal
clearance. In such case the maximum support vibration could
reach 26.4 mm/sec RMS to reach this operational alarm with
99% probability trend line for entire population as presented on
fig 3 (i.e. only 1% would run in rub). Also looking for worst case
for 1 of 7 recorded bearings and assuming the relationship for
the 50% trend line, the rub alarm could be set at 29.7 mm/sec
RMS. These numbers are established in very simply but also
conservative statistical model. Indeed it can be expected that
actual signs of rub will be observed much above the
recommended trip limit per ISO 10816 – at least for normal
operation conditions (around 100% speed). It allows to conclude
– essentially due to the moderate correlation coefficient 0.4 of
both signals - that vibration limits as in ISO10816 or API616
have not direct effect on the acceptable conditions of FFB, what
also confirms observations reported in [28].
25%
Max shaft relative vibrations to .
average bearing clearance [%]
20% 99% trend
line
15% 50% trend line
10%
5%
Turbine and bearing types A-1 A-4 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-4 D-1
0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Casing vibrations [mm/sec RMS]
Fig. 3. Comparison of shaft to bearing cap vibrations during the
mechanical running tests.
EXAMPLE 1: STATOR MODE INTERPRETATION BY
BODE PLOTS
Example of a hurdle with interpretation of NSV signal on the
support vibration is illustrated on fig. 4. The Bode plots show
vibrations taken on the turbine D-1 from table 5 with the
elliptical bearing located on compressor inlet with overhang
configuration of the bearing support (i.e. flexible support). The
identified problem – from machine reliability point of view - was
fluid film instability in form of the whip, which developed in hot
oil conditions along with high bearing clearance or pad
looseness. The whip mode here was of high amplification factors
13 (peak-peak value in range 50-80 microns) seen at ~40% of
synchronous frequency for the nominal turbine speed. Also this
mode crosses with synchronous signal during the shut down. It is
visible, that the whip mode manifests itself in the read-out of the
shaft vibrations at 5200 RPM, but is barely observable by the
seismic probes. Concurrently support mode excited by rotor
6
unbalance (synchronous 1X signal) dominates the support
vibration read-out at 4500 RPM. Note that the support vibration
mode here of value 0.355 in/sec 0-pk =9.0 mm/sec 0-pk is
equivalent to 38 microns pk-pk and that very similar value is
recorded by shaft relative vibrations. This means that the non-
contact probes at 4500 RPM actually measure bearing
movement, while absolute journal vibrations are almost nil. The
amplification factors for this mode are: ~12 for support vibration
signal and ~21 for shaft vibration signal. If only the support
vibration signal is available in the diagnostics, the fluid film
instability mode would not be detected. This is other evidence,
that the support vibration should not be trusted as reliable
diagnostic tool for verification of the rotordynamic system
conditions.
Support mode Shaft vibration
Fluid film
instability mode
Casing vibration
Fig. 4. Example of Bode plot for shaft and casing vibration in
small heavy duty GT. Start-up shown by green dots, shut down
by red dots.
EXAMPLE 2: HIGHER VARIABILITY OF SUPPORT
THAN SHAFT VIBRATIONS
One of plausible explanation of the moderate correlation
between support and shaft vibrations is high sensitivity of
support vibrations to bearing conditions like lube oil temperature
or assembly clearance. A simulation of a HP rotor-bearing
system for a heavy duty gas turbine (model F-1/2 in table 5 from
the appendix) illustrates such sensitivity. Here the support is
rigid, so that the bearing reactions would be enough to represent
forced response of the support. The simulation is carried out for
two types of conditions representing:
• Start-up – bearing clearance as assembled, oil temperature
40 C (initial during cold start-up)
• Shut-down after steady state operation – turbine side bearing
has reduced clearance due to the thermal growth of journal
(rotor on turbine end is ventilated with air from compressor
discharge), oil temperature 55C (nominal setting)
Results for both runs are shown on the fig. 5. There are plotted:
shaft (journal) vibrations by solid lines and bearing reactions by
dots. It is visible, that in most cases the rotor crossing its natural
modes has lower differences (relative, in percent) in peak shaft
vibrations than for bearing reactions.
This means that the support vibrations would show here higher
sensitivity to bearing conditions than the shaft vibrations. In this
particular case, the rotor balancing performed with aid of seismic
probes would face more difficulties than with aid of non-contact
probes, if thermal conditions of the turbine vary (e.g. same
speed, but different power load and thermal load or too short
turbines runs to establish stable influence vector). This kind
observation, where bearing reaction are more sensitive than rotor
vibration to operating conditions is common observation in the
industrial practice and among others was also reported in
[30,45].
5000 14
Compr. brg - start-up
Bearing oscialating reaction [N 0-pk] .
Compr. brg. - shut down 12
Journal vibrations [microns pk-pk] .
4000
Turbine brg. - start-up
10
Turbine brg. - shut down
3000
8
6
2000
1000
2
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rotor speed [RPM]
Fig. 5. Bearing reactions vs. shaft (journal) vibrations in
simulated start-up and shut down conditions. Solid lines –
journal vibrations with values on right axis, dotted lines –
bearing reactions with values on left axis.
EXAMPLE 3: BEARING CAP VS. BASEPLATE
VIBRATIONS
As discussed in previous sections, sometimes the train operators
are supposed to limit baseplate or foundation vibration due to the
specific functional limits for these components or EHS
regulation. Usually these limits are expressed for operating
frequency of the train, so that vibrations of interest would be
synchronous first of all and most likely generated by the rotor
unbalance gained during operation e.g. from damage of
compressor or turbine airfoil after FOD. Obviously the
relationship between the bearing cap and baseplate vibrations
baseplate depends mainly on static structure stiffness. This
example investigates the customer’s concern, what should be
recommended bearing cap limits to avoid baseplate vibrations on
example of large power turbine (coded J in the table 5 with GT
parameters).
The standard lateral response analysis was extended with
prediction of bearing cap and baseplate vibrations. The model –
similar to one described in [9] - was built for an overhang rotor
with explicit support structures, which are split in several items
like: bearings, pedestals, baseplate and others of known stiffness
and mass i.e. support is of multi-DOF type. It is considered that
both supports are working independently each other i.e. “cross-
taking” effect is negligible [34]. The model was validated
among other by the full speed / full load test – similar way as
described in [33,35]. The turbine can be installed on concrete
foundations (i.e. practically as rigid) or steel frame (several time
lower stiffness) like in offshore application.
7
 Bearing J3 - horizontal Vbearing
Bearing J3 - vertical VTC = (4)
Relative shaft [mils pk-pk] .

Bearing J4 - vertical
Vbaseplate
Bearing J4 - horizontal

Brg J3 - vert. Brg J3 - horiz.

Brg. J4 - vert. Brg J4 - horiz.
10.0%

Shaft vibr. / nominal clearance [%] .

9.0%
50% trend line from MRT
8.0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Rotor speed [RPM] 7.0%

Baseplate J3 - vert. 6.0%

Casing vibrations [in/sec RMS] .

Baseplate J3 - horiz.
Baseplate J4 - vert. 5.0%
Baseplate J4 - horiz.
Bearing J3 - horiz. 4.0%
Bearing J3 - vert.
Bearing J4 - vert. 3.0%
Bearing J4 - horiz.
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Bearing cap absolute vibrations [in/sec RMS]
Rotor speed [RPM]
Fig. 7. Shaft vs. bearing cap vibrations for operating speed
Fig. 6. Relative shaft (top) and absolute casing vibration range. Arrows show speed increase.
(bottom) response for the coupling unbalance. Power turbine
supported on concrete foundation. Obtained values are collected in the table 4, rows 2-5. The
transfer coefficient is in range 1.6 to 4.9 for the concrete
A demanding customer expects to keep vibrations on baseplate foundation and 1.1 to 2.9 for the steel frame. One reference here
no more than 3.5 mm/sec RMS for steel frame mounted on can be verification performed on a gas turbine installed in a
offshore platform or 2.0 mm/sec RMS for concrete foundation in navel vessel [29], which showed that steel baseplate support
onshore location. The synchronous 1X excitation comes from the practically reduces the vibrations with VTC = 1.3 - 2.5 for
unbalance due to the coupling misalignment, which is on a level configuration without anti-vibration dampers. The lower value
5 times higher than design values per API616. The synchronous for light baseplate on steel frame is not surprising, because their
analysis reveals that the Bode plots (fig. 6) for the shaft relative combined stiffness is similar or even lower than the stiffness of
and bearing absolute vibrations are much different and is in other the pedestal with the bearing housing. The last row of table 4
form presented on fig. 7. The overall observation is that, the lists the maximum response on bearing cap in operating range
relationship between support and shaft vibrations is on no more for the coupling unbalance. Basic finding is that bearing
than moderate level. Practically peaks at support vibration are vibration would be ~50% higher for the steel frame in
either natural vibration of the support itself or a forced response comparison to the concrete plate. Moreover the results show, that
generated from the unbalance force around MCOS. This the concrete foundation with lower acceptance limit 2.0 mm/sec
particular turbine configuration has a very low level of the shaft RMS makes the satisfaction the vibratory criteria more easy than
vibrations along the moderate level of the support vibrations. for the steel frames and light baseplates with higher limit at 3.5
Fig. 6 displays only 6% of nominal bearing clearance at support mm/sec RMS, because transference of the bearing vibration
vibrations around 6.3 mm/sec RMS. This would locate the peak down to the baseplate is high.
response much on the right of the reference data from fig. 3.
(also compare with the average trend line (3) copied from figure Concrete Steel
3). Concluding, the support vibration itself is a poor prognostic Foundation type
plate frame
tool of the shaft vibration – even in as simple situation like J3 Vert. 3.6 1.8
synchronous response in as design conditions Vibr. transfer
support Horiz. 2.3 1.1
coefficients
J4 Vert. 1.6 1.2
Other investigated information was a velocity transfer coefficient VTC
support Horiz. 4.9 2.9
(VTC) between the bearing and baseplate vibrations (at same Vibration limits Baseplate 2 3.5
support and direction) due to the need to control the baseplate [mm/sec RMS] Bearing 9.8 10.3
vibrations by assignment of the bearing vibration limits. The Max bearing response [mm/sec RMS] 6.22 9.63
velocity transfer coefficient VTC is here a simple proportion of Table 4. Sensitivity of the support structure vibration to the
both signals (0-peak) at nominal speed (with neglected phase lag foundation type.
between them):

8
CONCLUSIONS
The paper has presented a comprehensive overview of the
support vibration diagnostics and limits in application to IGT.
Such vibrations – as recorded on bearing cap, support frames,
casings, pedestals or baseplates - are still one of basic diagnostic
tool with important reliability function. Discussion of specific
cases and experience from simulations as well as field
observations allows to draw following conclusions:
• The moderate correlation between the sets of on shaft
(journal) and support (bearing cap) vibrations recorded in
independent measurements and simulations indicates that
the support vibrations is poor predictor of shaft vibrations
and conditions in case of fluid film bearings. The support
vibrations as high as for zone D threshold per API616 and
ISO 10816-4 should not mean by default, that the vibration
level is close to rub limit.
• Bearing cap vibration limits as in per API616 and ISO
10816-4 are conservative and assumes among others that the
gas turbine rotors have rigid supports. As shown on example
of many gas turbines produced by General Electric and
Alstom, the most of bearing supports should be considered
as flexible, what means higher bearing cap vibrations with
same bearing reactions transferred from the rotor to the
support. Consequently some of low frequency vibrations are
not result of rotor-fluid system instability, but crossing of
the unbalance force the natural mode of the support.
• Bearing cap (absolute) vibration caused for forced response
of the unbalanced rotor are more sensitive to bearing and
lubrication conditions (e.g. variation in bearing clearance,
oil viscosity etc.) than the journal relative deflection. During
balancing the rotor based on seismic probe signal, it is more
important than for balancing with aid of non-contact probes,
to identify the influence vector in very same thermal
conditions of the turbine.
• The paper illustrated the usefulness of support vibration
measurement and limits as a prevention method for
reduction of failures for the equipment attached to casings.
• If the bearing vibrations stays in the zone A to C per API616
and ISO 10816-4 i.e. below 14.7 mm/sec RMS = 0.58 ips
RMS, the excitation to standard equipment installed on the
casings or supports is low enough that such equipment can
successfully operate in high cycle fatigue condition, even if
its natural modes are in resonance with excitation from the
casing.
• As proven by long term operation of the aero-derivative GT,
which traditionally bear higher vibrations than heavy duty
GT, an exclusively designed equipment with aid of modal or
harmonic analysis can survive during long-term operation as
for vibrations even 50 mm/sec rms = 2 ips rms. Acceptance
of such conditions should, however, require a test validation
on component, sub-system or turbine level covering entire
operation speed range.
NOMENCLATURE AND ABBREVIATIONS
CF – crest factor
DA – direct amplitude or double amplitude
FFB – fluid film bearing
GG – gas generator i.e. high pressure (HP) compressor & turbine
HCF – high cycle fatigue
IGT - industrial gas turbines
HPC – high pressure compressor
MCOS - Maximum continuous operating speed
NSV – non-synchronous vibrations e.g. 2X, 1/2X
RMS – root mean square value of the signal
Sf – service factor
Upk-pk - vibratory displacement, peak-to-peak value
WBV – whole-body vibrations
VRMS – RMS value of non-rotating parts velocity
V0-pk – zero-peak value (amplitude) of the vibration velocity
VTC – velocity transfer coefficient
1X – synchronous vibrations, whose frequency is same as
rotational speed
2X – super-synchronous signal, whose frequency is two times of
the rotational speed
1/2X – sub-synchronous signal, whose frequency is ½ of the
rotational speed.
2*Cb - Bearing assembly clearance (diametric)
References
1. ISO 10816 “Mechanical vibration - Evaluation of machine
vibration by measurements on non-rotating parts”
2. Standard of American Petroleum Industry API616 “Gas
Turbines for the Petroleum, Chemical, and Gas Industry
Services”
3. S. Prakash “Acoustic Based Rapid Blowout Mitigation in a
Swirl Stabilized Combustors” Proceedings of ASME Turbo
2005, paper GT2005-68589
4. D. E. Bently, Ch. T. Hatch “Fundamentals of Rotating
Machinery Diagnostics” by Bently Pressurized Bearing
Press
5. M. P. Blake "New Vibration Standards for Maintenance"
Hydrocarbon Processing and Petroleum Refinery, 43, pp
.111- 114 , (January 1964)
6. S. J. Lasey “An Overview of Bearing Vibration Analysis”
by www.maintenanceonline.co.uk
7. S. Sabin “Understanding Discrepancies in Vibration
Amplitude Readings Between Different Instruments” Orbit
Magazine, Vol .26 No.1 2006
8. M. Blomstedt at al “Innovative Starting Procedure for
Siemens SGT-600 in Cold Climate Conditions” Proceedings
of ASME Turbo Expo 2011, paper GT2011-46409
9. M. Bielecki “Non-linear Behavior and Loading Capability
of the Spring Support in Lateral Response” paper on 9th
IFToMM International Conference on Rotor Dynamics
10. A. Lifson, H.R. Simmons “Vibration Monitoring of
Turbomachinery” Tutorial on 19th Turbomachinery
Symposium
11. K. R. Guy “Triage for Your Database – Part 2: Setting
Meaningful Alarms” paper of Vibration Institute www.vi-
institute.org
12. American Standard ASTM F1166 - 07(2013) “Standard
Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine
Systems, Equipment, and Facilities”
13. ISO 2631 “Mechanical vibration and shock - Evaluation of
human exposure to whole-body vibration”.
9
14. ISO 6954 “Mechanical vibration — Guidelines for the 34. E. Meli at al "Development and Preliminary Validation of a
measurement, reporting and evaluation of vibration with New Strategy to Model the Interaction Between Rotating
regard to habitability on passenger and merchant ships” Machines and Elastic Supporting Structure" paper on 9th
15. H. W. Paschold, A.G. Mayton “ Whole-Body Vibrations. IFToMM International Conference on Rotor Dynamics
Building Awarness in SH&E” in Professional Safety Apr 35. G. Vannini at al "Calibrating a Large Compressor’s
2011 Rotordynamic Model: Method and Application" published
16. Standard of American Petroleum Industry API618 at 7th IFToMM-Conference on Rotor Dynamics.
“Reciprocating Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical, and 36. A.J. Volponi "Gas Turbine Engine Health Management -
Gas Industry Services” Past, Present and Future Trends" Proceedings of ASME
17. German Standard VKI 3842 “Vibrations in piping systems” Turbo Expo 2013, paper GT2013-96026
18. J. C. Wachel, C.L. Bates “Techniques for Controlling 37. G. Jacquet-Richardet at al "Rotor to stator contacts in
Piping Vibration and Failures” ASME Paper 76-PET-18 turbomachines - Review and application" in Mechanical
19. K.C.Upreti, Dwaipayan Banerjee “Preventing Small Bore Systems and Signal Processing 40 (2013) 401–420
Piping / Tubing Failures in Reciprocating Compressors” 38. K. Mathioudakis at al "Casing Vibration and Gas Turbine
paper GT2013-94535 on ASME Turbo Operating Conditions" Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
20. B. D. Thompson, B. Wainscott, J. Mulcahy “Understanding 1989, paper 89-GT-78
& Minimizing the Vibratory Response of LM2500 Gas 39. E. Loukis “Combination of Different Unsteady Quantity
Turbine” ASME Turbo paper 2000-GT-600 Measurements for Gas Turbine Blade Fault Diagnosis”
21. M. I. Friswell “Dynamics of Rotating Machines” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 1991, paper 91-GT-201
Cambridge University Press 40. M. Maalouf “Gas Turbine Vibration Monitoring” published
22. Varanasi Rama Rao “Machine Foundations in Oil and Gas in ORBIT Journal [Vol.25 No.1 2005]
Industry” 41. “Vibration Monitoring by Bruel&Kjear”
23. H. E. Wettstein “Consequential Damage of Blade Failures in http://www.bksv.com/doc/br0094.pdf
Single Shaft Gas Turbines” Proceedings of ASME Turbo 42. Product specifications on Bently-Nevada web page
2012, paper GT2013-94221 www.gemeasurement.com
24. Norwegian Standard DNV-RP-C203 “Fatigue Design of 43. S. S. Florjanic “Mechanical Behavior of an Industrial Gas
Offshore Steel Structures” Turbine under Fault Conditions” Inter. Journal of Rotating
25. “Foundations for Dynamic Equipment” American Concrete Machinery 1999, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 219-230
Institute report ACI 351.3R-04
26. P. Nawrotzki, G. Huffmann, T. Uzungolu “Static and APPENDIX.
Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Turbine Foundations”
Structural Engineering International 2/2008 Gas turbine models of General Electric discussed in the
27. T.C. Rathbone “Vibration tolerances”, Power Plant paper
Engineering, 1939
28. M. Maalouf , T. Eldridge “Gas Turbine and Driven Bearing Support Speed
Model Rotor
Machinery Management and Diagnostics” Proceedings of type stiffness [RPM]
ASME Turbo 2011, paper GT2011-45759 A-1 HP rotor Tilting pad Flexible 11000
29. Hyung-Suk Han, Ki-Yong Choi “Analysis of Reducing A-4 LP rotor Tilting pad Rigid 8300
Tonal Noise of the Gas Turbine Generator in order to B-1 Single shaft Lemon Flexible 5100
Reduce Underwater Radiated Noise of a Naval Vessel” B-2 Single shaft Lemon Flexible 5100
Transactions of the Korean Society for Noise and Vibration C-1 HP rotor Lemon Flexible 5100
Engineering 01/2009 C-4 LP rotor Tilting pad Rigid 4900
30. M. Bielecki, S. Costagliola “Lateral Rotordynamic D-1 HP rotor Lemon Flexible 11100
Response of Low Pressure Gas Turbine Rotors” E-2 HP rotor REB Flexible 9900
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2013, paper E-3 HP rotor REB Flexible 9900
GT2013-94265 E-4 LP rotor Tilting pad Flexible 6100
31. T.C. Allison, H.R. Simmons “ Application of an Interactive F-1 HP rotor Tilting pad Flexible 7450
Balancing Procedure for Gas Turbines and other F-2 HP rotor Tilting pad Flexible 7450
Turbomachinery” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2009, J-3 LP rotor Tilting pad Flexible 3600
paper GT2009-60134 J-4 LP rotor Tilting pad Rigid 3600
32. Ch. Himmel “Two Healthcare Buildings Get the Power, the Table 5. Basic information about discussed GT models.
Noise, and the Vibration from a Gas Turbine Generator
System”
http://acoustics.org/pressroom/httpdocs/159th/himmel.htm
33. J.J. Yu “The Necessity of a Third Balance Plane for
Generator Rotor Field Balancing” Proceedings of the ASME
Turbo Expo 2014, paper GT2014-25706

10

View publication stats