315

Review Paper

Rotordynamics standards :new developments and the

need for involvement
A G Parkinson, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, CEng, FIMechE, MRINA
Engineering Mechanics, The Open University, Milton Keynes
P M McGuire, BSc
Blading Design, GEC-Alsthom Turbine Generators Limited, Rugby, Warwickshire

The paper reports recent developments in international standards which are particularly pertinent to manufacturers and operators of
rotating machinery. I n particular it discusses standards relating to balancing, especially flexible shafts, and acceptable vibration levels
fir rotating machinery.
I n the area of balancing the report is very opportune because, following an unanimous international ballot at the Draft International
Standard (DIS) stage, a new standard I S 0 11342, 'Mechanical vibration-methods and criteria for the mechanical balancing offlexible
rotors', has just been published. Nevertheless, despite publication of this new standard, I S 0 11342, work is already under way on a
major revision in which the classification of rotors will be completely changed.
K e y words: international standards, rotating machinery, vibration, balancing, rotordynamics

1 INTRODUCTION relating to rotor balancing and vibration evaluation is

1.1 General
The last thirty years has been a very active period in the
development of international standards relating to the
vibration and balancing of rotating machines. In partic-
ular standards relating to balancing, especially of
machines incorporating flexible shafts, have paralleled
the strong, academic and industrial, research endeav-
ours in this area. The standards work has been under-
taken by two sub-committees (SC1 and SC2) and some
related working groups under the overall umbrella of
I S 0 Technical Committee (TC) 108: Mechanical Vibra-
tion and Shock of the International Standards Organiz-
ation based in Geneva. The scope of the Technical
Committee is very broad, covering the whole field of
mechanical vibration and shock, including human
response, and is presently being widened further-a
matter that is touched on briefly at the end of this
paper. The subject of this presentation is only a small
part of the remit of I S 0 TC108, but it represents the
areas germane to rotordynamics.
This paper is concerned with standards produced by
I S 0 whose scope is intended to cover a wide range of
machinery, but of course other bodies also publish stan-
dards for specific types of rotating machinery. For
example, standards of the American petroleum industry
(API) dealing with special-purpose steam turbines, gas
turbines and compressors for general refinery services
(API 612, 616 and 617 respectively) include sections
related to machinery dynamics, balancing and vibra-
tion.
In the area of balancing, standards were developed
for balancing procedures, balance criteria, balancing
machines and field balancing. One pioneering standard
was IS0 1940, relating to the balancing of rotating rigid
bodies, which was published in 1973 and was subse-
quently updated and eventually superseded by I S 0
1940/1 in 1986. (A full list of international standards
The MS was receiued on 21 July 1994 and was accepted for publication on
22 December 1994.
CO6494 (0 IMechE 1995
given in Appendices 1 and 2 which also list some stan-
dards under development.) The production of standards
for flexible rotors followed some years behind the rigid
rotor document, but I S 0 5406 on balancing flexible
rotors and I S 0 5343 on criteria for flexible rotor bal-
ancing were published in 1980 and 1983 respectively.
The foundation stone for the development of machin-
ery vibration standards was laid in the 1930s by T.C.
Rathbone, who correlated the subjective opinions of
practising engineers with the limited quantitative mea-
surements available at that time. He proposed guide-
tines in the form of an amplitude/frequency chart, which
was broadly consistent with the concept that the vibra-
tion of different machines operating in the frequency
range 10-lo00 Hz could be considered to be of equal
severity if their r.m.s. velocity was the same. This
concept was adopted in 1964 in the German standard
VDI 2056, which also defined scales of vibration with 4
dB steps, since a change of this magnitude is accepted to
correspond approximately to the limit of human per-
ception. The early international standards, I S 0 2372
and I S 0 3945, first issued in 1974 and 1985 respectively,
retained this approach. These standards have been
applied extensively but recognition of their limitations
has led to the developments described below.
This presentation gives a concise introduction to the
above standards, outlines developments in the last ten
years and indicates ongoing reviews and revisions. It
is hoped that, as a result, a wider range of involvement
in the development of international standards will be
encouraged from academics and researchers, as well as
manufacturers and users. It is very important that inter-
national standards reflect new understanding and are of
practical relevance. For example, the major changes at
present under way in the standard for flexible rotors are
an ideal opportunity for fresh, skilled, knowledgeable
input, as are the recent developments in the area of sus-
ceptibility and sensitivity to change in unbalance. The
simplest way to make contact with this work is prob-
ably through the national standards bodies in home
Proc lnrtn Mefh Engrr Vol 209

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015

316 A G PARKINSON A N D P M McGUIRE
countries, such as the British Standards Institution
(BSI) in the United Kingdom, AFNOR in France and
DIN in Germany.
1.2 Rotordynamics and balancing
Research into rotordynamics and balancing has been
undertaken for some hundred years and has been very
active in the last forty years or so. The activity has been
stimulated by the very wide range of industries and
applications which feature rotating machinery. In addi-
tion much emphasis has been placed on the develop-
ment and design of machines with ever higher speeds, or
power outputs, sometimes coupled with reduced mass
and stiffness. These developments are typified by the
needs of the electrical power generation industry and in
aerospace technology.
It is not the intention of the present paper to review
these developments in detail, but it is probably appro-
priate to direct the reader to a few comprehensive refer-
ences. Thus Parkinson (1) presented a recent survey
which primarily related to balancing, but also listed a
range of international conferences which report
progress in rotordynamics. These include two series
which function at overlapping four yearly intervals,
namely ‘Vibrations in rotating machinery’ sponsored by
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the
‘Rotordynamics’ conferences under the umbrella of the
International Federation for the Theory of Machines
and Mechanisms (IFToMM). Rieger (2) has also pro-
vided a comprehensive, historical record, again in the
balancing area. Although there have been a very large
number of publications in technical journals and con-
ference proceedings, it is probably a sign of the growing
maturity of the subject that several books on rotordy-
namics have appeared in the last ten years or so. See,
for example, Childs (3), Darlow (4), Dimarogonas and
Paipetis (S), Kramer (6), Lalanne and Ferraris (7), Rao
(8) and Vance (9), all well-known authorities in the field.
These texts all give an insight into and an introduction
to many aspects of rotordynamics and balancing.
2 BALANCING STANDARDS
2.1 Rotor classification/terminology
As indicated in Section 1, for balancing purposes the
principal classification is into rotors which are either
rigid or flexible. Strictly, of course, all shafts and rotors
are flexible if they are exposed to vibration at a high
enough frequency. In the context of international stan-
dards, however, the following definitions, as set out in
I S 0 1925 (1 990), are used :
1. Rigid rotors. ‘A rotor is considered rigid when its
unbalance can be corrected in any two (arbitrarily
selected) planes. After correction, its residual unbal-
ance does not change significantly (relative to the
shaft axis) at any speed up to the maximum service
speed and when running under conditions which
approximate closely to those of the final supporting
system.
‘Note-A rotor which qualifies as a rigid rotor under
one set of conditions, such as service speed and
initial unbalance, may not qualify as rigid under
other conditions.’
Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
2. Flexible rotor. ‘Rotor not satisfying the above defini-
tion because of elastic deflection.’
In the rigid rotor definition the ‘shaft axis’ is subse-
quently defined as:
3. Shufi axis. ‘The straight line joining the journal
centres.’
In this classification of rotors into rigid and flexible
ones the crucial aspects are that it should be possible to
select arbitrarily any two planes for balancing purposes
and that the rotor remains balanced at any speed up to
the maximum service speed for a rotor to be classed as
rigid.
At present the amount of unbalance (for a rigid rotor)
is calculated as ‘the product of the unbalance mass and
the distance of its centre of mass from the shaft axis’. As
a consequence of this definition the following note is
included in I S 0 1925 (1990) under the heading of
‘unbalance’: ‘Note-The definitions in this clause apply
to unbalance in rigid rotors. They may also be applied
to flexible rotors, but because unbalance in such rotors
changes with speed, any values of unbalance given for
these rotors must be associated with a particular speed.’
The implications of this note are in contradiction to
the physical insight which underlies much research into
the unbalance response of flexible shafts. Thus consider
a thin slice of a shaft perpendicular to the shaft axis (see
Fig. 1 where for simplicity of illustration the cross-
section of the shaft is shown to be circular). Assume
that, when the shaft is not rotating, the shaft axis inter-
sects the slice at its geometric centre E (assuming the
deflection of the shaft due to gravity is ignored). The
mass centre C of the slice is in general offset from E by
a small distance e due to the small imperfections
unavoidably produced in the shaft during manufacture
(from errors in casting, machining tolerances and so on).
The mass m of the slice and the offset distance e form a
measure of unbalance in the slice, namely me.
If the shaft starts to rotate about the shaft axis with
an angular velocity w, the thin slice starts to rotate in
its own plane with speed w about an axis through E. A
centrifugal force mew2 is thus experienced by the slice.
This force is transverse to the shaft axis and may be
accompanied at other cross-sections along the shaft by
similar forces, which are likely to vary in magnitude and
direction along the shaft. These forces cause the shaft to
bend away from the shaft axis and the deflection modi-
fies the resultant forces experienced by the shaft.
On this basis the unbalance is defined to be a con-
stant in the shaft for all speeds, whereas according to
the definition reproduced above from I S 0 1925 (1990)
unbalance varies as the centre of each cross-section of
the shaft is deflected from the shaft axis due to flexure of
Fig. 1 Centrifugal force acting on an elementary slice of a
shaft rotating about its mid-point
Q IMcchE 1995
 ROTORDYNAMICS STANDARDS: NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND THE NEED FOR INVOLVEMENT
the shaft. These definitions are actively under review
and they represent one area in which fresh, external
input would be most welcome in this I S 0 work.
2.2 Rigid rotors
Techniques for balancing rigid rotors in two arbitrarily
selected correction planes have been well established for
many years. I S 0 1940 (1973) and its more recent
up-date I S 0 1940-1 (1986) note that it ‘is not readily
possible to draw conclusions as to the permissible
residual unbalances (after balancing) from any existing
recommendations, on the assessment of the vibratory
state of machinery, since there is no easily recognizable
relation between the rotor unbalance and the machine
vibrations under operating conditions’. For this reason
recommendations are presented for the balance quality
requirements of rigid rotors according to their type,
mass and maximum service speed, the recommen-
dations being established on the basis of world-wide,
practical experience.
The recommendations are couched in terms of
quality grades (G) which are based on the relationship
eperw= constant
where w is the angular velocity of the rotor at
maximum service speed and epcr is the permissible
residual specific unbalance value. This latter quantity is
related to the permissible residual unbalance, Uper,for a
rotor of mass rn as follows:
U Class 3: flexible rotor-a rotor that cannot be balanced
epcr
-3
- using modified rigid rotor balancing techniques, but
m instead requires the use of high-speed balancing
The quality grade information and the corresponding
maximum permissible residual specific unbalance values
are presented in tabular and graphical form respectively
for many rotor types in I S 0 1940-1. For example, for
car wheels quality grade G40 specifies
epcrw= 40 mm/s
Similar tabular and graphical presentations may be
found in reference works, such as Harris (10). I S 0
1940-1 also provides guidance for allocating the per-
missible residual unbalance to each (of two) correction
planes and procedures for the practical determination of
residual unbalances.
After some delay, work has recently been restarted on
drafting the second part of the rigid rotor balancing
standard, namely I S 0 1940-2. This document deals
with errors in the assessment of rigid rotor balancing. It
lists many examples of such errors, provides recommen-
dations for their determination and presents procedures
for evaluating residual unbalance in the presence of
errors. At the time of writing the proposals have just
been voted on internationally in draft form as ISO/DIS
1940-2. In concluding this section it should be reported
that a review of I S 0 1940-1 is being initiated, so that
again there is an opportunity for fresh input.
2 3 Flexible rotors
When work commenced on the drafting of international
standards for flexible rotors, the associated balancing
procedures were by no means as well established as
Q IMechE 1995
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
317
those for rigid rotors. Development of the standards
kept in step with the lively, and sometimes controver-
sial, discussions in the related research communications
and conference area. For this reason the first standard
for the balancing of flexible rotors, I S 0 5406, served
partly as an educational document and presented three
balancing methods, namely
Method 1 : modal balancing
Method 2: combined rigid rotor and modal balancing
Method 3 : influence coefficient matrix balancing
At that time it was not possible to agree on one
method. Subsequent research, practical testing, experi-
ence and discussion, however, has produced agreement
on, effectively, a single synthesized method [see Parkin-
son (l)]. Thus the new standard I S 0 11342 which
replaces I S 0 5406 and 5343 advises a single procedure
using modal, influence coefficients with prior rigid rotor
balancing as an option. In addition, although the
method is presented as a step-by-step process in which
modal unbalances are corrected one mode at a time,
users are reminded that the procedure can be automa-
ted as a computer aided balancing method.
The new standard, I S 0 11342, retains from I S 0 5406
the classification of rotors into five classes, of which the
three most important are as follows:
Class I : rigid rotor (see earlier definition)
Class 2: quasi rigid rotor-a rotor that cannot be con-
sidered rigid, but that can be balanced using modi-
fied, rigid rotor balancing techniques
methods
Classes 4 and 5 : special, restricted forms of rotor which
are explained in detail in I S 0 11342 along with
advice for balancing such rotors
On this basis class 1 rotors are the subject of I S 0 1940,
whereas balancing procedures and criteria for class 2
and class 3 rotors are the principal subjects covered by
I S 0 11342. For this purpose class 2 rotors are sub-
divided into eight groups, designated 2a to 2h, for each
of which variations of rigid rotor balancing procedures
are specified. For example, a class 2f rotor is illustrated
in I S 0 11342 by a multi-stage centrifugal pump/
compressor which can be modelled as ‘a symmetrical
rotor with two end correction planes; whose maximum
speed does not significantly approach second critical
speed; whose service speed range does not contain first
critical speed, and which has controlled initial unbal-
ance’.
Class 2c rotors have more than two transverse planes
of unbalance, but can be corrected by low-speed bal-
ancing, subject to certain precautions and methods of
assembly (see the steam turbine rotor of Fig. 2), despite
having a first flexural critical speed below the operating
speed of 3000 r/min. In contrast, class 3 rotors are to be
balanced by the high-speed (flexible rotor) balancing
procedure referred to above. See, for example, the 660
MW generator rotor in Fig. 3, which has several flex-
ural critical speeds below its operating speed of 3000
r/min.
In a sense this classification of flexible rotors and the
various related balancing procedures presented in the
Proc lnstn Mech Engrs Vol 209
318 A G PARKINSON AND P M McGUlRE
Fig. 2 Intermediate pressure (IP) steam turbine rotor for a 600 MW turbine
generator--class 2c rotor
standard are for guidance, rather than being manda-
tory. The core of the standard is to be found in the later
sections on balance criteria. After all, to the customer/
user it does not really matter how the balanced state is
achieved, provided that the balanced machine’s per-
formance meets specified acceptance standards-this
compliance is the overriding assessment. Guidance is
Fig. 3 660 M W generator rotor-class 3 rotor
Part C : Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
also given for the evaluation of the final state of unbal-
ance.
Thus in I S 0 11342:
Two methods are specified for evaluating the balance
quality of a flexible rotor in a balancing facility before
machine assembly: the first assesses the vibration level and
the second assesses the rotor residual unbalance. If the
rotor balance tolerances suggested herein are achieved
during correction in a balancing facility, the specified vibra-
tion limits of the assembled machine in service (see IS0
2372, I S 0 10816 and I S 0 7919) will most probably be
achieved. Accordingly, the criteria specified are those to be
met when the rotor is tested in the balancing facility, but
they are derived from those specified for the complete
machine, when installed, or from values known to ensure
satisfactory running of the rotor when it is installed.
For rotors whose final state of unbalance is assessed
on the basis of vibration in a balancing facility the pro-
cedure is summarized in the following relationship :
Y = K , X K , X K ~ X X
Here Y is the permissible once per revolution vibration
(bearing pedestal or shaft) in the balancing facility and
X is the corresponding total permissible vibration
(bearing pedestal or shaft) on site in the service speed
range, as given in the product specification or the
appropriate standard (for example I S 0 10816 or I S 0
7919). In addition, K o , K , and K 2 are conversion
factors. Suggested numerical values, or ranges, are given
for factors K O and K , in I S 0 11342, but the factor K,
needs to be established for each specific application.
This factor represents an adjustment if the vibration Y
in the balancing facility is measured as shaft vibration
at a different location along the shaft than that for
which X is specified. Users of this standard are strongly
encouraged to assess the values for K O and K , given in
the standard in the light of experience and to send any
resulting comments to the secretariat of I S 0 TClO8
through national standards bodies.
Q IMechE 1995
 ROTORDYNAMICS STANDARDS: NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND THE NEED FOR INVOLVEMENT
The alternative criteria for assessing the final state of
unbalance presented in I S 0 11342 are expressed in
terms of permissible residual unbalance. The guidelines
‘are based on a limited amount of documented practical
experience with the various classes of rotors. However,
if due regard is paid to recommended values, satisfac-
tory running conditions can be expected’. This is, there-
fore, another aspect of the standard which would benefit
from the input of further practical experience. The cri-
teria for a particular flexible rotor are derived from the
criteria in I S 0 1940 for an equivalent rigid rotor of the
same general type.
The application of this approach to the class 2 rotors
defined above is relatively straightforward, but the use
of the approach to the general, flexible rotors of class 3,
which require a form of modal balancing, requires more
thought. At present guidance is only given for class 3
rotors which are not significantly affected by more than
first and second mode unbalance. As an example the
procedure for class 3b rotors, as defined in I S 0 11342,
is set out below:
For rotors that are significantly affected by only the first
and second modal unbalances, then whatever their unbal-
ance distribution, the residual unbalance should not exceed
the following limits. expressed as percentages of the total
residual unbalance recommended for an equivalent rigid
rotor in I S 0 1940 and based upon the highest service speed
of the rotor:
(a) the equivalent first modal residual unbalance should
not exceed 100% ;and
(b) the equivalent second modal residual unbalance should
not exceed 60%; and
(c) if low speed balancing is carried out initially, the total
residual unbalance as a rigid rotor should not exceed
100%.
The above criteria are expressed in terms of equivalent
modal residual unbalances. Annex D in I S 0 11342 gives
a procedure for the experimental determination of these
quantities.
As reported earlier, the new standard I S 0 11342,
having been approved by international ballot, was
recently published (1994). Nevertheless, a major revision
is already under discussion, arising from proposals gen-
erated in the last two or three years. Various points of
detail are being considered for change, but one major
revision is also under active discussion. In the new
approach the previous classification of rotors into
classes 1 to 5 is abandoned and replaced by a tabula-
tion of different rotor configurations and the recom-
mended balancing procedures.
The configurations are tabulated in increasing order
of complexity starting from a single, rigid disc on an
elastic, massless, shaft up to integral rotors with distrib-
uted mass, elasticity and unbalance. Similarly, nine bal-
ancing procedures are proposed, designated A to I, once
again in general in increasing order of complexity,
although these balancing procedures are carried over in
the main from I S 0 11342. Thus the single disc rotor
referred to above should be subjected to either pro-
cedure A or C, whereas for the rotor with distributed
mass, unbalance and elasticity procedure G is advisable.
Procedure A is single-plane balancing and procedure G
is essentially the class 3 balancing procedure from I S 0
11342.
@ IMechE 1995
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
319
The early stage of this major revision is clearly an
ideal time for a wider contribution to its development.
2.4 Susceptibility and sensitivity of machines to
unbalance
For some years now a further possible standard has
been under discussion and development in parallel with
the work on I S 0 11342 and I S 0 1940. The develop-
ment embraces two factors. The first is susceptibility to
unbalance, which expresses ‘the likelihood of a machine
having a significant change of unbalance’ during oper-
ation. The second component is the sensitivity to unbal-
ance, that is the change in vibration of a machine due to
a change in unbalance. Of course for a machine that is
responding in a linear manner, vibration being pro-
portional to excitation, the sensitivity to unbalance is
also the vibration per unit unbalance.
This work culminated in the circulation of a draft
international standard ISO/DIS 10814 for ballot and
subsequent approval for publication as a standard. It is
aimed, for the present, primarily at simple machine
systems, preferably with rotors having only one reso-
nant speed in the entire speed range. For machines with
more than one resonant speed in the service speed
range, the resonant speeds should be widely spaced.
Machines are classified into three types, I, 11, 111, cor-
responding respectively to low, medium and high sus-
ceptibility. Thus, for example, paper machine rolls are
classed as type I, whereas pumps operating in sludge are
type 111. Five ranges of modal sensitivity are also pro-
posed, ranging from very low to very high, and graphi-
cal guidance is presented for these ranges for each
machine type. In general, reliance is placed on the
experimental determination of sensitivity values,
although reference to a possible numerical analysis is
included.
Even though I S 0 10814 is now in press for pub-
lication as an international standard work on the possi-
bility of a major revision has already been noted so that
once again the time is opportune for additional contri-
butions to this standard activity.
2.5 Balancing machines
International standards, such as I S 0 2953 on balancing
machines, description and evaluation, already exist for
balancing machines, but an area for new development
relates to balancing machines for mass production.
Work has recently been initiated on this topic under the
auspices of working group 11 of ISO/TC108/SCl, with
the target of producing a new standard, I S 0 12047. The
earlier standard, I S 0 2953, is also undergoing revision/
updating.
3 SHAFT VIBRATION STANDARDS
The previous section dealt with the development of
standards for the balancing of rotating machinery. If the
guidelines presented are observed, there is a high prob-
ability that the vibration produced in service by the
fully assembled machine will be sufficiently low to
permit unrestricted long-term operation. Evaluation of
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 209
320 A G PARKINSON AND
the vibrations of the fully assembled machine is of great
concern to the end user and in recognition of this there
has been a major emphasis on the development of
appropriate machinery vibration standards which has
resulted in a parallel series of standards, namely:
I S 0 10816--dealing with vibration measured on bear-
ings and other stationary components of machines
I S 0 79194ealing with shaft vibration
These are complementary standards which have been
drafted with a common format as a number of individ-
ual constituent parts, each of which is a standard in its
own right. In both cases, Part 1 is a basis document
which sets out general principles and guidelines with
regard to measurement parameters and positions,
instrumentation, applicable operating conditions, evalu-
ation criteria, etc. The subsequent parts are more spe-
cific and provide the additional detailed requirements
for particular machine types or groups. In particular,
guidelines are provided for allowable vibration levels
and the establishment of alarms and trip settings. For
example, I S 0 7919/2 deals with the measurement and
evaluation of shaft vibration for large steam turbine
generator sets and I S 0 10816/2 deals with pedestal
vibration for the same machines. Other standards in
these series include those for gas turbines and coupled
industrial machinery such as electric motor drives.
In those cases where it may not be industry practice
to perform vibration measurements on both structural
elements and rotating shafts there would not necessarily
be a standard in both series. A specific example of this is
the case of reciprocating machinery for which I S 0
10816/6 has been developed, but there is no current
activity in preparing a corresponding part of I S 0 7919.
Such a standard would be produced if practice were to
change and industry identified a need for it.
Details of the parts of I S 0 7919 and I S 0 10816 that
have been published or are under preparation at the
present time are given in Appendix 2.
3.1 Evolution of I S 0 7919 and IS0 10816
The need for I S 0 7919 and I S 0 10816 evolved from the
routine five year review of the earlier standards, I S 0
2372 and I S 0 3945. Both of these standards have
achieved considerable popularity world-wide but it had
become increasingly apparent that their usefulness was
restricted by a number of deficiencies. The most notable
of these were :
1. Neither standard dealt with shaft vibration.
2. The use of constant velocity criteria, although gener-
ally applicable to a wide range of machines, can
result in impractical vibration limits for machines
with either low or high operating speeds.
3. Definitions of evaluation zones for the assessment of
vibration were not clear and in some cases resulted
in major differences of interpretation.
4. Evaluation criteria were limited to the absolute
vibration level and did not address the effects of any
changes of vibration.
5. There were no guidelines for establishing vibration
alarm or trip values.
6. A wide range of machines was covered and the stan-
dards were therefore too general.
Part C : Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
P M McGUIRE
In order to overcome these deficiencies I S 0 7919 and
I S 0 10816 were developed as replacements for the exist-
ing standards.
3.2 Features of I S 0 7919 and IS0 10816
The first priority in developing the new standards was
to decide upon the most appropriate vibration quan-
tities. For shaft vibration it was clear that there was
universal use and acceptance of displacement as the
primary measurement quantity and this was adopted
for all parts of I S 0 7919. The situation was less well
defined for structural measurements and, although a
single value of vibration velocity regardless of operating
speed is the most appropriate for a large range of
machines, there is in some cases a need to relate vibra-
tion velocity to speed/frequency or to evaluate displace-
ment or acceleration. Hence the scope of I S 0 10816 was
extended to permit the use of more than one of these
three measurement quantities.
One of &hemost useful features of machinery vibra-
tion standards is the provision of evaluation criteria and
it was therefore a prime objective to make these clear
and unambiguous while providing the flexibility to
account for specific machine features which would
permit/require a more relaxed/stringent evaluation.
In an attempt to ensure that the criteria to be pre-
sented in the new standards were representative of
industrial experience, a detailed questionnaire was pre-
pared and circulated world-wide. Regrettably, although
useful data were obtained from the questionnaire, it
proved to be less helpful than had been anticipated.
Nevertheless, the responses did indicate that I S 0 2372
provided a firm foundation for development and it was
clear that the principle of assigning vibration levels to
four evaluation zones was correct. Much effort was
therefore spent on establishing clear qualitative descrip-
tions for these four zones, which resulted in the follow-
ing definitions:
Zone A . The vibration of newly commissioned machines
would normally fall within this zone.
Zone B. Machines with vibrations within this zone are
normally considered acceptable for unrestricted
long-term operation.
Zone C. Machines with vibrations within this zone are
normally considered unsatisfactory for long-term
continuous operation. Generally, the machine may
be operated for a limited period in this condition
until a suitable opportunity arises for remedial
action.
Zone D. Vibration levels within this zone are normally
considered to be of sufficient severity to cause
damage to the machine.
In general, safe long-term operation can be anticipated
provided that the upper limit of zone B is not exceeded
and there may not be any practical advantage in taking
action to reduce the vibration further, especially if this
were to require the machine to be removed from com-
mercial service. Similarly, although operation with zone
C is not desirable for unrestricted long-term operation,
it is not generally necessary to shut the machine down
immediately and in many cases operation until the next
convenient outage should be permissible.
(9 IMechE 1995
 ROTORDYNAMICS STANDARDS: NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND THE NEED FOR INVOLVEMENT
Table 1 Guidelines for evaluation zone boundary vibration levels for large steam turbine gen-
erator sets
Pedestal vibration r.m.s.
mmls
IS0 10816/2
Rated speed(r/min) 1500 1800 3000
~~ ~ ~~
Zone A/B 2.8 2.8 3.8
Zone B/C 5.3 5.3 7.5
Zone C/D 8.5 8.5 11.8
The zone boundary definitions are common to each
of the relevant parts of both standards but the vibration
values assigned to the zone boundaries are different for
each part. An example of the zone boundary values for
large steam turbine generator sets is given in Table 1.
Assessment of machinery vibration in terms of the
evaluation zones is clearly the first basis of evaluation,
but changes in vibration from a steady state reference
value established for a particular machine may be sig-
nificant even though the relevant zone boundary limits
are not exceeded. In order to deal with this situation an
additional criterion has been introduced which requires
any change of vibration to be considered, regardless of
whether this results in an increase or decrease in the
vibration magnitude. Similar guidelines are also provid-
ed for the specification of alarm and trip values relative
to the steady state reference value at each measurement
position.
The introduction of these features into the parts of
I S 0 7919 and I S 0 10816 has enhanced the applicability
of these standards to practical machine systems. Never-
theless, the continual improvements in measurements
and analysis technology will inevitably lead to further
modifications being required at future five year reviews.
These also provide the opportunity to take account of
comments received from industry about the practical
application of these standards. This feedback had not
always been forthcoming in the past and it is extremely
important that users of the standards should report
their experience to their national standard bodies so
that these can be considered and acted on by ISO.
3.3 Future developments
The improvements introduced into the parts of I S 0
7919 and I S 0 10816 have considerably enhanced their
practical usefulness. There are, however, still areas
where further improvements are possible and the rele-
vant I S 0 committees will continue to address these.
These areas for development include:
(a) extension of the broad-band vibration criteria to
consider discrete frequency components,
(b) vector analysis in terms of the amplitude and phase
of individual frequency components to evaluate the
true effect of any vibration changes,
(c) alternative limits for transient operation, for
example the passage through critical speeds during
run-u p/down,
(d) diagnostics and condition monitoring.
Development (b) should remove shortcomings of the
present I S 0 standards which deal only with changes of
the broad-band magnitude, regardless of phase. In some
cases this latter approach is not suficiently sensitive to
Q IMechE 1995
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
32 I
Shaft relative vibration peak-to-peak
Ilm
I S 0 791912
3600 1500 1800 3000 3600
3.8 100 90 80 75
1.5 200 185 I65 1%
11.8 320 290 260 240
detect significant changes in the dynamic state of the
machine.
The last of these is inextricably linked with machinery
vibration and represents an extremely fruitful area for
the development of future standards, as outlined below.
4 CONDITION MONITORING
As indicated in Section 1, the scope of the activity of
ISO/TC 108 is very wide, covering the whole range of
mechanical vibration and shock. For a long time it
embraced four sub-committees responsible respectively
for (a) balancing, (b) measurement and evaluation of
vibration for machines, vehicles and structures, (c) use
and calibration of measuring instruments and (d)
human exposure. Recently a new, fifth, sub-committee
has been established with responsibility for developing
international standards on condition monitoring. The
new development covers condition monitoring in a
broad sense and is not confined to vibration condition
monitoring. It therefore represents a major increase in
the remit of ISO/TC 108 and implies the need for new
experts to widen the range of expertise available to the
technical committee. Additionally, a further new sub-
committee is being established, namely ISO/TC l08/
SC6, concerned with vibration and shock generating
equipment.
5 CONCLUSIONS
There are, of course, a very large number of national
and international standards in the field of mechanical
engineering, which have been developed and up-dated
over many years. More recently additional standards
have been produced on a European level under the
umbrella of CEN (Comitt Europkn de Normalisation).
The scope of TC 108, covering mechanical vibration
and shock, including condition monitoring, in itself is
broad. The present paper relates to a fairly narrow area
of such work, but it is hoped that the presentation
demonstrates the need for more input into such activity
from a broad range of engineers from manufacturing
industry, academia, research organizations and
operatorsJcustomers. Standards need to be based on
current understanding and experience, if they are to
have practical relevance and value, so that the results of
research are particularly pertinent.
REFERENCES
1 Parkinson, A. G. Balancing of rotating machinery. Proc. Instn
Mech. Engrs, Part C , 1991,20yCl), 53-66.
2 Rieger, N. F. Balancing of rigid and flexible rotors. Shock and
vibration monograph SVM-12, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
Proc lnstn Mech Engrs Vol 209
322 A G PARKINSON AND P M McGUlRE
3 ChiMs, D. Turbomachinery rotordynamics, 1993 (John Wiley, New
York).
4 Darlow, M. S. Balancing of high-speed machinery, 1989 (Spnnger-
Verlag, New York).
5 Dimarogoms, A. D. and Paipetiq S. A. Analytical methods in rotor
dynamics, 1983 (Applied Science Publishers, London and New
York).
6 Krsimer, E. Dynamics of rotors and foundations, 1993 (Springer-
Verlag, Berlin).
7 L n l n ~ e M.
, and Fernris, G. Rotordynamics prediction in engineer-
ing, 1990 (John Wiley, Chichester).
8 Rao, J. S. Rotordynamics, 1983 (John Wiley Eastern).
9 Vaaw. J. M. Rotordynamics of turbomachinery, 1980 (John Wiley,
New York).
10 Harris, C. M. Shock and vibration handbook, 3rd edition, 1987
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
APPENDICES
The appendices contain lists of international standards
related to balancing and the vibration of rotating
machinery. The dates in parentheses are those of first
publication and the latest date of reconfirmation
(indicated by C) or subsequent withdrawal (designated
by W). Where a standard is under development the
present stage of progress is reported. It should be noted
that, in the vast majority of cases, these standards are
also published by BSI (the British Standards
Institution), as dual-numbered British Standards. For
example, I S 0 5406 is also available as BS 5265: Part 2:
1981.
APPENDIX 1
Balancing
I S 0 1925 (1990) Mechanical vibration-balancing-
vocabulary, 3rd edition (bilingual edition).
I S 0 1925 Amendment 1 (in press).
I S 0 1940 (1973, W 1986) Balance quality of rotating
rigid bodies.
I S 0 1940/1 (1986, C 1990) Mechanical vibration-
balance quality requirements of rigid rotors. Part 1 :
determination of permissible residual unbalance.
I S 0 1940/2 Mechanical vibration-balancing quality
requirements of rigid rotors. Part 2: assessment of bal-
ancing errors (DIS stage).
I S 0 2371 (1974, C 1990) Field balancing equipment-
description and evaluation.
I S 0 2953 (1985, C 1990) Balancing machines-
description and evaluation.
I S 0 3080 (1974, W 1991) Guide for the mechanical bal-
ancing of marine main steam turbine machinery for
merchant service.
I S 0 3719 (1982, C 1994) Balancing machines-symbols
for front panels (trilingual edition).
I S 0 5343 (1983, C 1993) Criteria for evaluatingflexible
rotor balance.
Part C : Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on July 19, 2015
I S 0 5406 (1980, C 1994) The mechanical balancing of
flexible rotors.
I S 0 7475 (1984, C 1994) Balancing machines-
enclosures and other safety measures.
I S 0 8821 (1989, C 1994) Mechanical vibration-
balancing-shaji andfitment key convention.
I S 0 11342 (1994) Mechanical vibration-methods and
criteria for the mechanical balancing of flexible rotors
(first revision under discussion).
I S 0 10814 Mechanical vibration-susceptibility and
sensitivity of machines to unbalance (approved for
publication, 1994).
I S 0 12047 Mechanical vibration-balancing machines
for mass production-description and evaluation
(under development).
APPENDIX 2
Vibration
I S 0 2041 (1990, C 1994) Vibration and shock-
vocabulary, 2nd edition (bilingual edition).
I S 0 2372 (1974, C 1994) Mechanical vibration of
machines with operating speeds from I0 to 200
revfs-basis for specifying evaluation standards.
I S 0 2373 (1987, W 1988) Mechanical vibration of certain
rotating electrical machinery with shaft heights
between 80 and 400 mm-measurement and evalu-
ation of the vibration severity.
I S 0 2954 (1975, C 1993) Mechanical vibration ofrotat-
ing and reciprocating machinerprequirements for
instruments for measuring vibration.
I S 0 3945 (1985, C 1990) Mechanical vibration of large
rotating machines with speed range from I0 to
200 r/s-measurement and evaluation of vibration
severity in situ.
IS0 79 19 Mechanical vibration of non-reciprocating
machines-measurements of rotating shafts and evalu-
ation.
Part 1. General guidelines (1986, C 1991).
Part 2. Large land-based steam turbine-generator
sets (in press).
Part 3. Guidelines for coupled industrial machines (in
press).
Part 4. Guidelinesfor gas turbines (in press).
Part 5. Machine sets in hydraulic power generating
and pumping plants (DIS stage).
I S 0 10816 Mechanical vibration-evaluation of machine
vibrations by measurement on non-rotating parts.
Part 1. Basis for specifying evaluation standards (in
press).
Part 2. Steam turbine generator sets exceeding 50
M W (in press).
Part 3. Coupled industrial machines (in discussion).
Part 4. Industrial gas turbine sets (in discussion).
Part 5. Hydraulic machine sets (in discussion).
Part 6. Reciprocating machines with power rating
above 100 kW (in press).
Q IMcchE 1995