CW1 Balancing of Rotating Masses

Name: Amin Mohamed
SID: 10812927
Report Title Balancing of rotating masses
Submission Date 05/11/21
Abstract
The goal of this lab session was to balance a multi-plane four mass system statically and dynamically.
This was done by means of a plot using graph paper and with Catia v5. Upon comparison of the
results of both methods, it is clear to see that both approaches were accurate as the percentage
error ranged between 0.78% - 2.29% only. Catia v5 is able to provide a much more accurate reading
in comparison to a hand drawn plot as it eliminates any human errors. All in all, the aim of the
investigation was met as the results that were obtained from the two methods of calculation lead to
produce static and dynamic balance of the multi-plane four mass system.
Introduction
An imbalanced rotating machine can lead to failure in structures, excessive vibration as well as noise,
excessive loading of support bearings and large dynamic forces. This will cost companies a lot of time and
money to repair the damages. Therefore, it is extremely crucial during the design and manufacturing
phase of the machine that the rotating parts are balanced statically and dynamically so when it is up and
running it can operate efficiently. Balancing is essentially trying to improve the distribution of mass in a
body so that it is able to rotate in its bearing without any unbalanced centrifugal forces. That can only be
achieved to a certain degree. Hence, balance is achieved when a rotating system of mass does not
produce any resultant centrifugal forces or couples and when there is an even distribution of masses
around the axis of rotation which occurs when the centre of gravity of the rotor is on the axis of rotation.
Nonetheless, if the centre of gravity does not lie on the axis of rotation, an unbalanced force will be
produced. This frequently occurs in rotating machines which have large masses, and operate at extremely
high speeds such as generators, gas turbines, compressors, and steam turbines. The goal of this lab
session was to balance a multi-plane four mass system statically and dynamically.
Static unbalance Dynamic unbalance
Figure 1 - Requirements to obtain static and dynamic balance
Experimental procedure Figure 2 - An industrial rotating machine, gas turbine
Firstly, the system is checked that it is initially statically and dynamically unbalanced. To do so, mass 1
and mass 2 are secured in their pre-determined axial and angular positions. Once that’s done, the drive
belt is disconnected. If the system revolves at a singular rest position, the system is said to be statically
unbalanced. Then, the drive belt is reconnected, and the safety cover is placed, if the system begins to
vibrate, the system is dynamically unbalanced. Using the mr values that have been provided, a force
polygon is drawn to scale (1mm → 1kg.mm). This is done by firstly drawing a vertical line of 73mm (mr1),
then a second line of 92mm (mr2) is drawn at an angle of 200 degrees from the end of mr1. Given that
the angles for mr3 and mr4 are unknown, a compass is used to draw two arcs to determine the relative
positions of mr3 and mr4. Then, their angular positions can be measured using a protractor and the
results are recorded into table 1. Once the force polygon diagram is completed, the results obtained can
be used to produce a couple polygon which leads to obtain the values of mrl3 and mrl4 and therefore the
axial values of l3 and l4 can be calculated. The couple polygon is also drawn to scale (1mm → 50
kg.mm2). Lastly, masses 3 and 4 are secured on the shaft using the angular and axial positions obtained
and the system is checked to see if it is in static and dynamic balance.
Equipment’s used for vector diagram: Components of Apparatus:
• 30 cm ruler • Safety cover

• Compass • Four masses
• Protractor • Drive belt
• Graph paper • Motor
• Rotating shaft
• Bearing
• Protractor
• Fixed ruler
Figure 3 - Rotating mass apparatus
Figure 4 - Typical view of static & dynamic balancing systems Figure 5 - Typical view of 4 out of balance masses in 4 different planes on a rotating shaft
Example calculations
A. Calculating the axial positions of mass 3 & mass 4

➢ An mr polygon is drawn to scale using mr1 & mr2 which have been provided.
➢ The relative positions of mr3 and mr4 are determined by drawing arcs as shown in figure 4 and their angular
positions are found by using a protractor.
➢ Using the values obtained from the mr vector diagram, an mrl diagram is drawn to scale (1mm → 50 kg.mm2).
➢ The length of mrl3 and mrl4 are 152mm and 161mm respectively. Lengths were measured using a ruler.
➢ Using the scale, the lengths are converted to kg.mm2.
➢ mrl3 = (152mm x 50 kg.mm2 )/1mm = 7600 kg.mm2
➢ mrl4 = (161mm x 50 kg.mm2 )/1mm = 8050 kg.mm2
B. Determining the percentage error

➢ Percentage error of the axial position (l) for mass 4
𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 − 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞
% 𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞
(𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟓 − 𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟔𝟎)

% 𝑬𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒓 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟎%
𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟔𝟎
Results
Table 1 - Values obtained by using the graphical method
Table 2 - Values obtained by using the analytical method in Catia v5
Table 3 - Percentage error for both methods of calculations
Figure 6 - Graphical method force polygon Figure 7 - Graphical method couple polygon
Figure 8 - Catia v5 force polygon

Discussion
From the values in tables 1,2 &3, it can be concluded that the rotating masses in figure 3 will be statically
and dynamically balanced based on the calculated values of axial and angular positions of masses 3 & 4.
Given that the percentage error between the graphical method and Catia v5 for the axial and angular
position is relatively low which ranges from 0.21% - 2.29% supports the fact that the rotating masses
were able to reach static and dynamic balance. Since there is a percentage error present between the
two methods suggests that there are a few random and systematic errors that are present.
When handling equipment’s such as a protractor and a ruler, there will always be a certain degree of
uncertainty present when measuring. This is because of the precision of the equipment and the effects of
zero error. This leads to an uncertainty equivalent to the resolution of the instrument that was used, i.e.,
the protractor and ruler that was used in this experiment have an uncertainty of +/- 1 degrees and +/- 1
mm correspondingly.
Given that the percentage error of the angular position was as low as 0.78% for mass 4 indicates that if a
protractor with a lower degree of precision was used, then the measuring of the angle would be more
accurate and therefore closer to the true value.
The use of a ruler will also bring the same errors as a protractor due to the level of precision of the ruler.
From table 3, it can be seen that the percentage error for the of mrl values of masses 3 & 4 are already
relatively low. This suggests that increasing the resolution of the ruler will result in a more accurate value
that is closer to the true value.
Furthermore, systematic errors can lead to a false reading. For example, if the ruler is not calibrated to
the standard SI meter, or the condition of the ruler, i.e., if the ruler is badly worn from one end, this will
introduce the same amount of uncertainty to all measurements. Other types of random error can arise
such as human error. This is due to neglecting to zero an equipment or misreading a scale.
To produce more reliable and accurate results, the random errors and systematic errors must be
reduced. This can be done by using rulers or protractors with a higher degree of precision and resolution.
To reduce any errors even further, repeat measurements of the length and angles can be taken, repeat at
least 6 times and take the average. Using the average will lead to a more accurate and reliable value of
the axial and angular positions for masses 3 & 4.
Conclusion
In summary, the aim of this lab session was to balance a multi-plane four mass system statically and
dynamically by adding two masses to the rotating shaft at certain axial and angular positions. The axial
and angular positions were determined by a graphical method which were hand drawn and by using Catia
v5. From the values that were obtained and recorded in tables 1, 2 & 3, it can be concluded that the
rotating masses in figure 3 will be statically and dynamically balanced based on the calculated values of
axial and angular positions of masses 3 & 4. Nevertheless, due to the random errors and systematic
errors that were present in the experiment, there were differences in the values between the two
methods with a percentage error ranging between 0.21% - 2.29%. The percentage error can be reduced
by taking averages of repeats and by using instruments with a higher degree of precision and resolution.
References
1. Vaughan, J., 2021. Static and Dynamic Balancing - Measurement Methods | Brüel & Kjær. [online] Bksv.com. Available at:
<https://www.bksv.com/en/knowledge/blog/vibration/static-and-dynamic-balancing-part-two> [Accessed 25 October
2021].
2. Joseph, U., 2021. Sustaining Life Span of Rotating Equipment in Plants - Reliabilityweb. [online] Reliabilityweb.com.
Available at: <https://reliabilityweb.com/articles/entry/sustaining-life-span-of-rotating-equipment-in-plants>
[Accessed 27 October 2021].
3. Utm.edu. 2019. Lecture note #2, Physical Measurements, PHYS 201L. [online] Available at:
<https://www.utm.edu/staff/cerkal/lect2.htm> [Accessed 31 October 2021].

CW1 Balancing of Rotating Masses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CW1 Balancing of Rotating Masses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CW1 Balancing of Rotating Masses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Name: Amin Mohamed

Static unbalance Dynamic unbalance

Figure 1 - Requirements to obtain static and dynamic balance

Experimental procedure Figure 2 - An industrial rotating machine, gas turbine

• 30 cm ruler • Safety cover

A. Calculating the axial positions of mass 3 & mass 4

B. Determining the percentage error

(𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟖𝟓 − 𝟏𝟐𝟑. 𝟔𝟎)

Table 3 - Percentage error for both methods of calculations

Figure 8 - Catia v5 force polygon

You might also like