John Crane EAA Nash Road Trafford Park Manchester M17 1SS UK

The Requirement for Balancing Couplings

Introduction
There is an increasing demand for coupling specifiers to ask for balanced couplings, but this isnt always necessary and can not only have cost implications but also implications for the condition of the final product.. Balancing of couplings is fundamentally there to reduce the vibrations on the machines that they are connected to. Generally speaking for the majority of applications John Crane do not recommend balancing the coupling, as the methods of manufacture, and tolerances used in the design of our Metastream couplings, are more than adequate to produce a good level of inherent balance.

Balance Standards
The majority of couplings John Crane supply go into the oil and gas industry, in which rotating equipment, such as pumps, is defined by API standards. API 610, the process pump standard, is the main standard, which governs the supply of Metastream couplings. This standard is now at 10th edition, and in the latest edition, the specification has a number of clauses relating to balancing. These are the clauses that matter: 6.2.2. All-metal flexible element, spacer type couplings in accordance with AGMA 9000 class 9 shall be provided. 6.2.2. e) couplings operating at speeds in excess of 3,800 r/min shall meet the requirements of ISO10441 or API 671 for component balancing and assembly balance check. 6.2.3. If specified, couplings shall be balanced to ISO 1940-1 grade G6.3 The first clause specifies AGMA 9000 class 9, which all Metastream API couplings meet. The standard requires that the centre of rotation of the coupling must not exceed 0.05 mm eccentricity from the rotating axis of the machines that are connected. This means the couplings must be accurately machined to achieve this, but as a consequence auxiliary balancing is not normally required. The second clause listed states that for higher speed applications, the components must be balanced in accordance with API 671, which is a tight specification, and is mandatory. This is achieved on a balancing machine, and normally means for a standard coupling that the transmission unit and each hub have to be balanced to G0.66, and then the assembly check balanced to G6.6. High speed applications requiring this level of balance, will often be fitted with precision shaft ends, either keyless, or with 2 keys. If a hub is offered with a standard single key, then John Crane would not normally recommend taking this approach and offer transmission unit balance only, unless the customer wants the hubs balancing anyway.

Finally the third clause, which is optional from the specifier, requests the coupling to be balanced to G 6.3. In this instance John Crane would instead offer to balance the transmission unit to G2.5, which will result in a better level of installed balance than would be achieved through the specification, particularly with standard bore and keyed shafts. See later explanation of balancing hubs. Earlier editions of the standard can still be referred to on some projects, and in particular the one to watch out for is the 8th edition. In the 8th edition, there is a requirement for balance to G1.0, on all components, which in practice means the transmission unit and both hubs. To put this into perspective, the standard states that balance of the hubs must be undertaken before machining of the keyway. This makes complete nonsense of the tight balance achieved on the machine, and as such John Crane would not recommend adopting this approach.

Balance of hubs with standard keyways

The balancing sequence of hubs with keyways, specifies that the hub is firstly bored to size, and then balanced as a component, and then the keyway is machined into the bore. The outcome of this is that all the prior balancing operation is now wasted, as there is a significant change in the balance state of the hub, due to the variability and material removal over the key, and any movement in the material around the key. The keyway has a clearance over the top of the key fig 1, and this has a relatively large tolerance. The outcome is that for average sized couplings operating at moderate speeds there is a significant change in the installed balance condition, than there would be for a hub with plain un-keyed shafts. To give an example, API 610 8th ed. requires coupling hubs to be balanced to G1.0 but allows single keyways to be machined after balancing. The hub when balanced by this method meets the requirement of the standard but what is the effect on the overall equipment vibration levels? As an example, a Metastream TSKS-0500 hub with a 100 mm bore weighs 14.8 kg. Thus, API 610 8th ed. requires this hub to be two plane balanced such that the maximum residual unbalance is less than 19.6 g-mm/plane [for a duty speed of 3600 rpm]. The coupling hub subsequently has a single keyway machined and is fitted to the shaft with a key. Keyway standards specify a clearance over the key. In this particular example, the standard key is a 28x16 key and the permitted mean clearance is 0.65 mm. Thus, the "missing mass" caused by this clearance is 7.76 gm. and it is located at a radius of 56.5 mm, thus creating a potential unbalance of 438 g-mm, or 22 times the hub balance limit.

This ignores any unbalance caused by the key extending beyond the end of the hub boss or the effect of rounded ends of the key. You meet the standard but may not be achieving the goal of reducing vibration.

Figure 1
Tolerance on clearance

Clearance over key

Hub
Key

Shaft

There is also the other problem associated with slip fits that of introducing unbalance. Taking the TSKS-0500 example above, a typical H7/g6 slip fit could result in a total clearance of 0.069 mm, or an axis displacement of 0.034 mm when the setscrews are tightened. This introduces an unbalance of 500 g-mm in a 14.8 kg hub. This is a worst case, but an unbalance of 250 to 300 g-mm would certainly be possible, more than 10 times the G1.0 limit. If we take this simple case a step further. Unbalance caused by keyway Unbalance caused by slip fit G1.0 residual unbalance AGMA rms unbalance = 438 g mm = 500 g mm = 39.2 g mm [19.6 x 2] = 666 g mm

If the hub was balanced to G6.3 [247 g mm] then the AGMA rms balance = 709 g mm, an increase of just 6%. If vibration is a problem then the true causes of unbalance must be tackled by specifying the AGMA class and considering all causes of installed vibration. It is evident from the above example, that there are huge errors in the process of balance and then machining in a keyway, as there are inevitable effects from machining a key, which has a clearance over the top. It should be noted that this takes no account of other errors in assembly, and balancing of the shaft.

What does this mean?

Time spent on unnecessary balancing can create a delay in the final assembly operations, and ultimately may provide no added value despite the additional cost so wherever possible we advise that customers take note of the specification, and where hub balance is being considered on couplings operating up to 3800 rpm, ask the question Do I want to pay for a process that gives no improvement to the ultimate installed balance of the coupling? Further information is available by emailing smarttorque@johncrane.co.uk

Peter Carlisle John Crane EAA Director of Coupling Engineering