Knowledge Base Articles

Characterizing Shaft Misalignment Effects Using Dynamic Measurements

Article ID: NK-1000-0214

Publish Date: 26 Feb 2015
Article Status: Approved
Article Type: General Product Technical Information
Required Action: Information Only

Recent Article Revision History:

Revision/Publish Description of Revision
26 Feb 2015 updated affected products
(See end of article for a complete revision history listing.)

Affected Products:
Product Line Category Device Version
Machinery Health Corrective Alignment and Balancing Anything related to
Management Alignment and Balancing
 CHARACTERIZING SHAFT MISALIGNMENT EFFECTS
USING DYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS

by Dan Nower, P.E. & Curt Thomas

Computational Systems, Inc

Biographies

Dan Nower is an Applied Development Engineer in the Engineering Division at Computational Systems, Incorporated. He
is responsible for the development of the alignment product line. Dan has over ten years of alignment and vibration
analysis experience. He received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla He is a registered
engineer in the state of Tennessee, an associate member of ASME, has published several papers and is the holder of two
alignment related patents.

Curt Thomas is a Consultant working with Computational Systems, Incorporated. He is responsible for much of the
testing of all alignment products. Curt has two years experience in the alignment area. His prior experience includes
steam turbine-generator repair work and a construction engineer in the U.S. Army. He has a BS in Mechanical
Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology

Abstract

A test system has been developed for measuring the effects of shaft misalignment under a variety of common field
conditions. This system allows five common types of couplings to be tested under loaded conditions for both offset and
parallel misalignment in the horizontal and vertical directions. The dynamic measurements that were collected include
vibration spectral and waveform data, axial and radial phase data at 1x, 2x and 3x RPM, motor current data, and
temperature data. This information should be extremely useful when troubleshooting possible misalignment problems

Introduction

We all know the importance of proper shaft alignment. Misalignment can lead to excessive vibration and stresses,
premature component failures, and eventually shortened life spans of machines, finding misalignment while a machine is
shutdown is not often difficult. Just measure the misalignment with a reliable alignment system. But what about the step
prior to this, when the machine is operating?

Most of us are familiar with the traditional vibration analysis rules:

1. 2x running speed amplitude

-Radial direction for offset misalignment

-Axial direction for angular misalignment
-Most misalignments are a combination of the two, so 2x in any direction

Page 2 of 17
2. 0 degrees and 180 degrees Phase Shifts

Radial direction for offset misalignment

Axial direction for angular misalignment

Page 3 of 17
How accurate are these rules? Is the 2x RPM peak always a good indicator? How does the coupling design affect the
shape of the spectral information? Do the phase rules work? If so, how much misalignment does it take to cause the
phases to shift?

Beyond the traditional rules, those that are involved in the alignment area have noticed interesting phenomena with
respect to motor current, and temperature. Little has been documented on these parameters. This undertaking monitored
these parameters, but this paper deals mainly with the accuracy of the traditional rules on a limited number of couplings
and touches briefly upon motor current and temperature results.

Previous Work

Dewell, David L., "Detection of a Misaligned Metallic Disc Flexible Coupling Using Real Time Spectrum Analysis." Master
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 1980.

Lorenc, Jerome A., "Changes in Pump Vibration Levels Caused by The Misalignment of Different Style Couplings."
Proceedings, Eight International Pump Users Symposium, Houston Texas, March 1991.

Nower Daniel L., "Preliminary Report on Characterizing Shaft Misalignment Effects Using Dynamic Measurements",
Presented at the Vibration Institute Meeting, Wilmington, Virginia, June 1992.

Piotrowski, John D., "How varying Degrees of Misalignment Affect Rotating Machinery - A Case Study." Proceedings,
Machinery Vibration Monitoring and Analysis Meeting, New Orleans Louisiana, June 1984.

Test Machine & Couplings

The configuration of the test machine is shown in Figure 3. The motor drove the generator which provided power to the
heating element located below the motor. Much care was taken to correct for soft foot. The couplings tested are listed in
Table 1 along with their manufacturer's recommended alignment tolerances.

Page 4 of 17
MOTOR: Dayton

1 Hp
3450 RPM Loaded, 3550 Rpm Unloaded
15 amps, full load
60 Hz, Single-Phase
115 Volts
28 Rotor Bars
24 Stator Slots
Anti-Friction Bearings
Loaded by heating element located underneath

GENERATOR: Dayton

360O RPM
16.7 amps, maximum
60 Hz, Single-Phase
120 Volts
2 Kilowatt
Anti-Friction Bearings
Provides power to heating element

Parameters Monitored

Misalignment Conditions

Besides the aligned condition, the machine was increasingly misaligned in the vertical and horizontal directions. The pure
offset misalignments were typically 10, 25, and 50 mils, and pure angle misalignments were typically 1, 5, and 15

Page 5 of 17
mils/inch (17.45 mils/inch = 1?)

Vibration & Motor Current

Vibration spectra and time waveforms were gathered using normal averaging and high resolution time synchronous
averaging. Time synchronous averaging was utilized because the high level of electrical signals generated by the single-
phase motor.

Motor current was gathered in different frequency spans and resolutions to monitor the line and rotor bar frequencies.

Phases
Phase at 1x, 2x, and 3x RPM were monitored in the radial and axial directions. The outboard axial readings were taken
around the clock face, at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock Inboard axial readings were also taken. If phases did not stabilize after
one minute, phase at that point and speed was labeled "unstable".

Temperature
Temperature was measured at the end of each misalignment route, which took about 2% hours to complete. Temperature
was measured with an infrared temperature probe at all bearings and at the coupling hubs.

Amplitude & Spectral Results

General

The amplitude data was analyzed to locate those multiples of running speed that provided the highest levels and those
that trended upward as the misalignment increased. Harmonics up to 8x were reviewed, but only up to 6x was included in
the analysis since amplitudes at 7x and 8x were so small. The amplitudes were sorted into blocks by increasing amounts
of offset and angular misalignment. If the amplitudes in each block trended upward it was flagged as good indicator. The
number of good blocks and the highest amplitudes determined which harmonic of running speed was the best indicator for
each coupling. Table 3 shows the results for each coupling. The Grid coupling had the best misalignment response with
63% of the amplitude blocks trending upward. The Shim coupling was the worst with 12.5%.

Page 6 of 17
Rotor bar frequencies (24x and 28x) were also reviewed. They did not show an upward trend as the misalignment
increased in any direction. Outboard measurement points trended misalignment as often as inboard measurement points,
however the highest amplitudes were found at the inboard bearings.

Also, no correlation was found with respect to:

a. Angular misalignment more prone to revealed itself in the axial direction and offset misalignment in radial
direction.
b. Vertical misalignment affects the horizontal measurement points and vice versa.

Bun Coupling

Page 7 of 17
The spectra shown are from point Generator Inboard Horizontal (GIH) as the horizontal offset misalignment increased
from the aligned condition to 75 mils. This point provided the most reliable spectral data and also provided the best
upward trend. The spectral content shown in Figure 5 is typical of this coupling. As shown in the data, 2x times running
speed proved to be the most consistent misalignment indicator for this coupling. The highest amplitudes (0.292 ips-pk)
were generated at GIH as the machine was offset in the vertical direction 75 mils (12.5 mils above tolerance).

Based upon the data the following was concluded for this coupling:

1. 2x RPM was the best amplitude to track to find misalignment as a whole.

2. Horizontal misalignment was difficult to find.
3. 1x RPM was not much help.

Jaw Coupling
The spectra shown in Figure 6 are from measurement points Generator Inboard Axial (GIA) as the horizontal angular
misalignment increased. The offset misalignment was increased to 25 mils (10 mils above tolerance) and the angular was
increased to 15 mils/inch (0.86 degrees). These spectra show the typical high harmonic content that was generated while
the jaw coupling was in service. Amplitudes at 2)( RPM were much lower, but the overall energy generated was high. 3x
and 5x prove to be the best harmonics to track a misaligned condition. Amplitudes at 3x reached 0.09 ips, pk at GIA and
GIH, caused by both angular and offset misalignment Amplitudes at 5x reached 0.12 and 0.15 ips, pk at GIV and GIH,
caused by both angular and offset misalignment.

Based upon the data the following was concluded for this coupling:

1. 3x RPM was the best amplitude to track to find misalignment as a whole.

2. 5x RPM was a good indicator in this case because of the frequency response function (FRF).

Page 8 of 17
 3. Horizontal and vertical misalignment was just as easy to find when 3x is tracked.
4. 1x RPM was not much help.

Shim Coupling
The spectra shown in Figure 7 are from the measurement point Motor Outboard Vertical (MOV) as the horizontal angular
misalignment increased. The offset misalignment was increased to 50 mils and the angular was increased to 15 mils/inch
(0.86 degrees). This was the quietest and smoothest running coupling tested. All amplitudes were low. The highest
amplitude was 0.0654 ips-pk at 2x on measurement point GIH in the aligned condition. Typically the amplitudes were
highest at 2x running speed, but were typically down around 0.01 ips-pk. Consistent upward trends were difficult to find,
with 6x the best indicator. Amplitude trends typically decreased as the misalignment increased and started to increase at
the maximum misalignment.

Based upon the data the following was concluded for this coupling:

1. 6x RPM was the best amplitude to track to find misalignment as a whole However its track record was not
good, correct only 30% of time. 2x RPM had the highest amplitudes, but did not typically (only 10%) trend upward.
2. Any misalignment was difficult to find. Therefore, caution should be used when using this coupling. The
vibration maybe low, however stresses are still working on the critical components.
3. 1x RPM was not much help.

Another machine with this type of coupling was tested at a customer's facility. The machine was a 700 Hp induction motor
driving a multi-stage pump. The response was measured from several misaligned conditions. The amplitude and spectral
response generated similar information. No amplitudes trended upward as the misalignment increased. A typical set of
spectra are shown in Figure 8.

Page 9 of 17
Grid Coupling

The spectra shown in Figure 9 are from measurement points Generator Inboard Vertical (GIV) as the horizontal offset
misalignment increased. The offset misalignment was increased to 50 mils and the angular was increased to 15 mils/Inch
(0.86 degrees). These spectra show that the 4x RPM peak is a good indicator of the amount of misalignment, with the
maximum amplitude of 0.2056 ips-pk showing up at GIV with 50 mils of offset in the horizontal direction. Not only did the
4x harmonic peak generate the highest amplitudes, but also showed an upward trend as the misalignment increased 80%
of the time. Accuracy (trended upward) of the 1x and 2x RPM peaks were 35% and 60%, respectively.

Page 10 of 17
Based upon the data the following was concluded for this coupling:

1. 4x RPM was the best amplitude to track to find misalignment as a whole. Also producing the highest
amplitudes.
2. Misalignment was not difficult to find.
3. 1x RPM was not much help.

Rubber Internal Gear Coupling

This was also a quiet and smooth operating coupling. Again, all amplitudes were low. The highest amplitude was 0.0204
ips-pk at 2X RPM at measurement point GIH which was misaligned by 15 mils/inch in the horizontal direction. Typically
the amplitudes were highest at 2X running speed, but were typically down around 0.01 ips-pk. As shown in Figure 10,
consistent upward trends were difficult to find, with 6X being the best indicator. Amplitude trends typically increased as the
misalignment increased but upward trends ware minimal, typically starting at 0.004 ips-pk and increasing to 0.010 ips-pk.

Page 11 of 17
Based upon the data the following was concluded for this coupling:

1. 6x RPM was the best amplitude to track to find misalignment as a whole. However its track record was not
excellent, correct 53% of time. 2x RPM had the highest amplitudes and trended upward 43% of the time.
2. Any misalignment was difficult to find since the synchronous amplitudes ware so low. Therefore, caution should
be used when using this coupling. The vibration maybe low, however stresses are still working on the critical
components.
3. 1x RPM was not much help.

Another machine with this type of coupling was tested at a customer's facility. The machine was a 100 Hp induction motor
driving a single stage centrifugal water pump. We measured the response from several misaligned conditions. The
amplitude and spectral response generated similar information. This being small upward trends with increased
misalignment and 2x being the best indicator. A typical set of spectra are shown in Figure 11.

Page 12 of 17
Phase Results

It was difficult to decide how to reduce all the phase data down into something practical, Phase differences were
calculated across the coupling for the axial and radial measurement points, Phase differences were also calculated from
end-to-end of the motor and the generator. These differences sorted by the type of coupling, type of misalignment, and
misalignment direction. Each group was considered a phase block. A phase shift was flagged if it was a multiple of 180
degrees +/- 15 degrees. Unstable phases were not considered in phase shift calculations.

Total phase accuracy was calculated by taking all 180 degrees phase shifts and dividing by the total number of times a
phase shifts could have occurred. The phase block accuracy was determined by dividing the number of phase blocks that
shifted by the total number of applicable phase blocks.

If just the raw percentages are reviewed (see Table 4), phase analysis does not appear to be a good indicator of
misalignment. The numbers typically ran in the low to mid 20% range. Phase indicated misalignment the best on the Jaw
Coupling and the worst on the Rubber Gear Coupling.

Page 13 of 17
However, the percent accuracy is not how the phase is typically used in the field. It is utilized by determining the number
of 180 degree phase shifts measured during operation. The greater the number of 180 degree phase shifts the more likely
that a misaligned condition does exist. The results of this are shown in the final column of Table 4. The number of phase
shifts increased in some of the couplings as the misalignment increased to a certain point. A YES is logged in the above
table for those that did. It is interesting to note that for the maximum misalignments (50 mils offset and 15 mils/inch angle)
the number of phase shifts per condition decreased. Also there appears to be a relationship between the accuracy
percentages and the phase shifts, with the cutoff point being around 15%

Tests on the 100 Hp and 700 Hp machines produced similar results. The results from the 700 Hp machine (which used a
shim type coupling) were: Total Accuracy = 20%, Block Accuracy = 40%, and the number of phase shifts did increase with
the amount of misalignment. The 100 Hp machine (which used a shim type coupling) results were: Total Accuracy = 7%,
Block Accuracy = 0%, and the number of phase shifts did not increase with the amount of misalignment.

Motor Current Results

We believe that the motor current portion of the experiment actually raised more questions than it answered. It was
expected that by measuring the motor current it could be determined that proper alignment can save money by reducing
the amount of wasted energy consumed to overcome forces induced by misalignment. This held true for the Bun coupling.
With higher degrees of misalignment, the motor current increased small amounts, ranging from 2.1% to 4.9%. The
savings typically did not increase as the misalignment increased This raises a question, Are the saving percentages the
same for larger machines if they are properly aligned?

Jaw coupling motor current results did differ from the bun coupling. All motor currents at line frequency decreased as the
misalignment increased, opposite of what was expected. This was true regardless of the type or direction of misalignment.
However, "two times slip" sidebands around line frequency and all harmonics of line frequency increased in amplitude.
The increase in amplitudes occurred during the initial misalignment and remained at that those levels. They did not
increase as the misalignment Increased.

The remaining couplings produced wild results. The motor currents varied up and down as the misalignment increased.
Further investigation revealed that the electrical system under test did not have a stiff voltage. When the system was
loaded, the voltage was pulled down significantly. In order to compensate for this, voltage and input power factor should
have been measured, but was not. Also, the '"two times slip" sidebands did not react as they did with the Jaw coupling. All
delta amplitudes (between the line amplitude and the lower sideband amplitude) remained stable as the misalignment
increased. The Shim Coupling remained around 49 dB, the Grid Coupling around 47 dB, and the Rubber Gear around 51

Page 14 of 17
dB.

Temperature Results

As with the other measured parameters (vibration, motor current, and phase) the temperature response to misalignment
varied with the type of coupling. Some indicated misalignment well, especially when looking at the coupling temperature.
Table 5 below shows how the couplings ranked using temperature as a misalignment indicator. The All Points Block
Accuracy is the number of temperature blocks that showed an upward trend divided by the total number of chances. This
includes the temperatures at the motor bearings, generator bearings and the coupling hubs. Considering all couplings, the
coupling measurement point showed the most consistency; therefore the Coupling Temperature Block Accuracy column
shows how often this particular location showed an upward trend. The table shows that the Grid coupling was the best of
the couplings tested and the shim coupling was the worst.

Results from the larger machines (700 Hp and 100 Hp) showed similar results. Coupling block results on the shim
coupling (700 Hp) and the rubber gear coupling (100 Hp) were 0% these two couplings also performed poorly as an
indicator in the above data.

Conclusions

Amplitude and Spectral

Probably the most significant item learned from this experiment is that the spectral information generated by a machine is
very dependent upon the type of coupling. Figure 12 shows a set of spectra from the same measurement point (GIH) with
similar misaligned conditions. Troubleshooting personnel should take this into consideration while doing their job. Also
beware of the type of coupling being used prior to performing running alignments or running soft foot checks. CSI does
not condone these type of checks.

Page 15 of 17
Phase Analysis

When looking at the number of phase shifts over the complete machine, phase analysis is a good indicator for several
couplings and not for others. So, before performing this type of analysis know what type of flexible coupling is used on the
machine being tested. See Table 4 for results on each coupling.

Motor Current

Hopefully you can learn from our mistakes. Much care has to be taken when determining the effects of misalignment on
the efficiency of the total machine. Just measuring motor current is not enough. To determine the effects the machine, it
should be operated at the same load before and after alignment. For example, a motor-pump combination should be
operated at the same flow rate before and after. Also, if the machine is not on a stiff (with respect to voltage) system,
measure voltage and input power factor. The proper amount of savings can be calculated from this information.

Temperature

If using temperature as a misalignment indicator you should be aware of what type of coupling is installed on the machine,
see Table 5 to see those couplings tested. Also, the best measurement point location is the coupling itself, preferably one
of the coupling hubs. Be sure to use a non-contact method, such as infrared, to measure since the coupling is rotating.

Some of the upward trends found were small. The increase is small enough that a variation in ambient temperature or the
process could affect the temperature more than the misaligned condition. These parameters were held constant during
the test, but the process may have affected the results from the large machines.

General

It is evident from the data that the troubleshooter in the field should always be aware of the type of flexible coupling being
used before any final decisions are made. Different couplings affect the spectral shape (Figure 12), phase (Table 4),
motor current, and temperature (Table 5)

During the test, responses were measured within three operating hours of the initial startup for each condition.
Misalignment maybe like heart disease, it maybe required to operate in a poor condition awhile before symptoms start
showing up. In the case of misalignment, time to allow the misalignment stresses to open up clearances

Most of the results generated from this experiment were from a machine smaller than the typical machine in the field
further testing should be performed on larger machines using the same type couplings. Some tests have been performed
with the shim and rubber gear designs, which confirmed most of the results obtained from the small machine.

Page 16 of 17
Complete Article Revision History:
Revision/Publish Description of Revision
26 Feb 2015 updated affected products
09 Nov 2010 Original release of article

©Emerson Automation Solutions 2009-2019. All rights reserved. For Emerson Automation Solutions trademarks and service marks, click this link to
see trademarks. All other marks are properties of their respective owners. The contents of this publication are presented for informational purposes
only, and while diligent effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, they are not to be construed as warrantees or guarantees, express or implied,
regarding the products or services described herein or their use or applicability. All sales are governed by our terms and conditions, which are
available on request. We reserve the right to modify or improve the design or specification of such products at any time without notice.

View Emerson Products and Services: Click This Link

Page 17 of 17