INFLUENCING FACTORS ON MOTOR VIBRATION & ROTOR CRITICAL
SPEED IN DESIGN, TEST AND FIELD APPLICATIONS
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC-(do not insert number)
Raj Mistry Bill Finley.
Member, IEEE Senior Member, IEEE
Siemens Industry, Inc. Siemens Industry, Inc.
4620 Forest Avenue 4620 Forest Avenue
Norwood, OH 45212 Norwood, OH 45212
USA USA
rajendra.mistry@siemens.com bill.finley@siemens.com
Abstract – This paper will present various case studies of how
the rotor or system natural frequencies can be strongly
influenced by its external and internal factors and how small
variations in these factors can influence the motor vibration at
the manufacturer and in the field. Motors constructed to API
541 standards are required to have a rotordynamic lateral
natural frequency that is removed from the operating speed by
at least 15%. The location of this natural frequency can depend
on many factors such as bearing clearance, bearing type,
residual unbalance, oil temperature, oil viscosity, and bearing
housing stiffness. Depending on the design, some motors are
more sensitive to these parameters than others, and small
changes in these factors may cause large variances in the
motor natural frequency. As a result, small variations in test
setup, manufacturing tolerances, or field installations within
critical components can cause noticeable differences between
the calculated and measured natural frequencies. Variation in
motor vibration may also be seen between the motor operating
on the manufacturer’s test stand and the motor operating in the
field. In the field some apparently minor changes on ambient
conditions or set up can significantly change the motor
vibration. Additionally this paper will propose a worst case
calculation method for motor natural frequencies that will
provide greater confidence to the end user that the motor will
operate successfully in the field before the motor is installed.
Index Terms — Induction Motor, Vibration, Lateral Critical
Speed, Torsional Resonance, Coupling Misalignment.
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper will review several real world case studies that
created considerable havoc for the end user until the root cause
was discovered. These situations could have been avoided if
the basic knowledge demonstrated in this paper was known.
The paper will also demonstrate how even a minor variation in
motor dimensions or tolerances can have a significant effect on
the motor performance. This paper will also show the motor’s
sensitivity through both calculations and models and
demonstrate the actual tested performance changes as a result
of these minor variations.
The first example will illustrate the influence of various motor
design and manufacturing parameters to a rotordynamic critical
speed. For example, a 0.001 inch (1 mil) change in bearing
diameter or a minor change in oil viscosity can move a motor
rotor resonance much closer to the operating speed. This
Scott Kreitzer Ryan Queen
Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
Siemens Industry, Inc. Siemens Industry, Inc.
4620 Forest Avenue 4620 Forest Avenue
Norwood, OH 45212 Norwood, OH 45212
USA USA
scott.kreitzer@siemens.com ryan.queen@siemens.com
variation in performance can also happen in the field due to
wear or environmental temperature changes. The reader will
learn how to avoid these types of situations, which can cost the
user millions of dollars in down time.
The second example will demonstrate an actual situation
seen in the field and includes a motor driving a reciprocating
compressor powered from an ASD. This less common
circumstance introduces many new concerns that are not
always obvious. For example, the changes in speed make it
virtually impossible to avoid all the possible speeds at which a
torsional resonance could exist. The solution may be as simple
as blocking out the speed ranges around the torsional
resonances. However, this potential solution can be
complicated by the fact that there can be significant variations
in the torsional stiffness calculations of the rotating
components. In some cases, this situation can force the
necessity of performing field tests to verify the exact location of
the resonances and then make field adjustments as necessary.
The third example will demonstrate a condition where there
was considerable variation in ambient temperature, and the
motor and driven equipment did not grow thermally at the same
rate. In this example, the system integrator did not have a good
understanding of the temperature change effects on all of the
components in the system. In this particular case, if the correct
coupling was used, this problem could have been avoided. This
paper will also demonstrate how the system performed with the
wrong coupling and how the problem was fixed with the proper
coupling. The basic question in solving this field problem was
this: how much coupling misalignment was acceptable and
why did this create vibration? This paper will discuss how to
predict the level of vibration with varying degrees of
misalignment. Although the solution to this problem seems
simple, it took considerable time and effort to get to the root
cause. Unfortunately in some instances, by the time the
problem is resolved, there may already be hundreds of similar
applications set up in the field.
II. INFLUENCING FACTORS ON LATERAL
CRITICAL SPEED
A. Description of Influencing Factors
There have been many cases where minor changes in motor
parameters can cause significant performance changes. For
example, small changes in bearing clearances can change the
bearing stiffness enough to move the critical as much as 200 to
1
 th
400 RPM. According to API 541 4 edition [1], the separation
margin (SM) between the critical speed and operating speed
should be greater than 15%. In this example, this seemingly
minor change in clearance can take a design which was above
the 15% separation margin (SM) to below the SM limits of API.
As only a few mils of clearance can influence rotordynamic
performance, it is easy to understand that this change in critical
speed could result from wear on the bearing journals over time,
which can be exacerbated by excessive stopping and starting.
In some cases, it is also possible to see significant changes in
bearing stiffness and critical speed as a result of oil film
viscosity. This will be demonstrated with actual test results and
with calculations utilizing finite element simulations. In addition,
it will be demonstrated how calibration of the model boundary
conditions is also necessary to achieve accurate simulations.
For 2 pole and 4 pole sleeve bearing machines above 5000
horsepower, achieving the appropriate 15% separation margin
can be challenging. In the absence of test data, the accuracy of
the critical speed calculation becomes extremely important. For
this reason, worst case parameters should be used in the
vibration analysis, and the motor should be designed to meet
the 15% separation based on the most conservative estimation
of critical speed.
Calculated critical speeds are typically depicted with a Bode Fig. 1 Bode Plot Example, Shaft Vibration and Phase
plot, which is the plot of shaft vibration in mils (peak-to-peak)
versus shaft rotational speed. The shaft vibration is typically 1. Bending Modes: The sensitivity of the critical speed to
plotted at the shaft location for each of the bearing proximity these parameters depends largely on the mode shape of the
probes. In addition, the phase versus rpm is also included. An natural frequency. All mode shapes have a combination of shaft
example of these plots is shown in Fig. 1. This case represents bending and shaft displacement at the bearing supports. Mode
a typical configuration of two proximeter probes per journal shapes with a large amount of shaft deflection and relatively
bearing mounted at 45 degree angles from the vertical. In this small amounts of shaft displacement at the bearing supports
example it is apparent that a rotordynamic resonance exists are called bending modes. An example of this type of mode is
around 2250 RPM. A point of inflection also occurs in the phase shown pictorially in Fig. 2. In this case, the shaft has a large
angle around this rotational speed which is also a strong deflection at the center and a relatively small amount of shaft
indicator of a critical speed at this location. These calculated displacement at the bearing. The degree of influence of each
plots can be directly compared to motor coast down data taken parameter on critical speed strongly depends on the ratio of
with the corresponding shaft probes. At this point the accuracy shaft bending to shaft displacement at the bearing. In general,
of the critical speed prediction can be determined. however, the critical speeds of bending modes are heavily
There are multiple influencing factors that affect the influenced by shaft and rotor stiffness, moderately influenced by
calculation of critical speed, some of which are affected by support & foundation stiffness, and only lightly affected by
manufacturing and some of which must be determined bearing properties.
experimentally. Most of these factors can be separated into one 2. Rigid Body Modes: In contrast to bending modes, rigid
of four categories: Bearing stiffness and damping, support body or cylindrical modes have a small amount of shaft bending
stiffness, rotor stiffness, and rotor weight. This list is by no and a relatively large shaft displacement at the bearings, as
means comprehensive but represents the ones that are most shown in Fig. 3. In general, rigid body modes are strongly
influential to the rotordynamic calculations: influenced by bearing and support stiffness and damping,
moderately influenced by rotor weight, and lightly influenced by
Bearing Stiffness and Damping shaft and rotor stiffness. The influencing factors and their
• Bearing clearance degree of influence on critical speed for these two modes are
• Bearing diameter summarized in Table 1.
• Oil viscosity
B. Effects of Bearing Stiffness and Damping on Critical Speed
Support Stiffness
• Stiffness of bearing housings and motor frame Figs. 4 and 5 show how differences in bearing clearances
• Foundation stiffness can affect the critical speeds. This particular example was
taken from a 4 pole induction motor with a shaft height of 630
Rotor Stiffness mm. The bearing was a 200 mm flange mounted plain
• Shaft stiffness cylindrical journal bearing. Many sleeve bearing manufacturers
• Rotor core stiffness offer several standard clearances ranging from large to small. In
• Bearing span from DE to NDE this example the standard clearances are shown in Fig. 4 using
the following notation: Auto +1 (large), Auto (middle), and
Rotor Weight

2
 Auto -1 (small). A non-standard, tighter clearance is also listed 0.0160

DIA CLEARANCE (INCHES)

here as “Auto -2. “ 0.0150
The calculated critical speeds for the various bearing 0.0140
clearances are shown in Fig. 5. For a plain cylindrical bearing, 0.0130
the critical speed drops almost 200 RPM for each 2 mil 0.0120
increase in bearing clearance. It is worth noting that this bearing 0.0110
mode was mostly a rigid body mode which is strongly 0.0100
influenced by bearing stiffness. A true bending mode would 0.0090
show much less sensitivity to these bearing properties. 0.0080
Additionally, a four lobe bearing was analyzed, and the results 0.0070
in Fig. 5 also show that this bearing type is much less sensitive 0.0060
to bearing properties, even in a rigid body mode. "AUTO -2" AUTO -1 AUTO AUTO +1

Fig. 4 Diametric Clearances for a 200mm Plain Cylindrical

Journal Bearing [2]

3000

2500

2000

RPM
1500
AUTO+1
1000 AUTO
AUTO-1
500 AUTO-2
Relatively small shaft
movement at the bearing
0
Large shaft Plain Plain Four Lobe,
deflection at the rotor
Cylindrical, Cylindrical, 200mm
Fig. 2 Bending Mode 200mm 180mm Journal
Journal Journal

Fig. 5 Effects of Bearing Type, Bearing Journal, and Bearing

Clearance on Critical Speed

C. Effects of Rotor Stiffness and Weight on Critical Speed

The lateral stiffness of an induction rotor core can be difficult

to calculate due to its non-homogenous, complex geometry and
variety of different materials. Although core stiffness is small
compared to a similar sized ring made of solid steel, this
stiffness can influence the critical speed by as much as several
hundred RPM. The rotor core stiffness is influenced by the
Relatively large shaft amount of shrink fit to the shaft, the type of rotor construction,
movement at the bearing and the axial pressure on the laminated core. A process for
Large shaft measuring this stiffness is outlined in the example below. This
deflection at the rotor
particular rotor was part of the same 4 pole induction motor
mentioned previously.
Fig. 3 Rigid Body Mode
In order to ensure that the rotor model was accurate for the
case in question, two calibration tests were performed. The first
Bearing Support Rotor Rotor test was a rotor bump test with the rotor hanging vertically to
Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Weight simulate a zero stiffness support. This test was performed with
Bending a set of six radial accelerometers spaced along the length of the
Light Moderate Heavy Moderate
Mode rotor and second set of six additional accelerometers placed 90
Rigid degrees from the first set. The rotor was then excited by striking
Body Heavy Heavy Light Moderate it with a calibrated force impact hammer. The vibration output
Mode was then normalized per unit of input through the transfer
function. The results showed the first mode at 142 - 143 Hz and
Table 1: Degree of Influence on Critical Speed for Various the second mode at 270 – 276 Hz. This simple arrangement
Mode Shapes was then modeled under a free-free boundary condition. The

3
rotor core was modeled as a cylinder and then the elastic
modulus was adjusted until the calculated mode matched the
experimental. In this case, the rotor core elastic modulus was
lowered to 5% of steel in order to match the measurements
above.
The second rotor calibration test was done with the rotor
horizontally on v-blocks in order to simulate a near infinite
support stiffness. The rotor was positioned with the center of
the journal in the center of the v-blocks. A bump test as
described above was then performed with thirty five
accelerometer positions along the length of the rotor. The
response showed a natural resonance at 45.5 Hz as illustrated
in the frequency response in Fig. 6. Each of the accelerometer
readings were broken down to their position on the shaft at 45.5
Hz in order to see the mode shape of the v-block test (Fig. 7).
Fig. 6 Frequency Response of Rotor Bump Test on V-Blocks
Fig. 7 shows that the v-block support stiffness was not infinite
as seen by the bearing centerline not being maintained on the
zero axis. A simple calculation was performed using the ratio of
frequencies as a function of the ratio of compliance to provide
the frequency if infinite stiffness were present. The natural
frequency at infinite stiffness was determined from the
measurement values as follows:
fsys measured natural frequency of the rotor in v-blocks
(hz)
fk=∞ calculated natural frequency of the rotor with infinite
support stiffness (hz)
Applying these equations, the measured 45.5 Hz was
adjusted to an infinite stiffness at the bearings yielding the
result of 56 Hz below. In this case the shaft displacement at the
bearing was 0.00081 inches and the maximum shaft
displacement at the middle of the core was 0.0024 inches.
4
Fig. 7 Experimental Mode Shape of Rotor on V-Blocks
The rotor model in Fig. 8 utilized a pinned boundary condition
at the center of the bearings and a rotor modulus of 5% of steel.
With these boundary conditions, the calculated first natural
frequency was 55.74 Hz. The two tests conducted and the
model simulations show that the rotor model is very accurate.
Fig. 8 Rotor Model with Pinned Boundary Condition at the
Bearing Midpoint
D. Effects of Support Stiffness and Foundation Rotor Stiffness
on Critical Speed
1. Calibrations of the Structure: The calibration of the
supporting structure is also critical in obtaining an accurate
rotordynamic calculation. In an induction motor, the support
stiffness includes the bearing housing, end shield, and motor
frame. In this example, the support stiffness was measured by
bump testing the assembled motor in the horizontal, vertical,
and axial directions on each end of the machine. Each test was
completed using 3 accelerometers to ensure accurate
measurements. The impact force and vibration were captured
for each bump test and the transfer function of the dynamic
stiffness was plotted. Fig. 9 shows one example of the bump
test frequency plots, taken from the NDE horizontal probe. A
second order best fit polynomial was applied to the data up to
the natural frequency, which in this case was 111 Hz for the
NDE horizontal. Then the best fit curves for all 6 plots were
evaluated at the operating speed of 34.6 Hz (2076 RPM).
After the completion of the dynamic stiffness testing, the
model was updated to use the calibrated stiffness values
listed in Table 2. The calculated versus measured vibration
results are shown in Fig. 10.
 Commercially available software was used for the finite
element calculations. In each of the cases the rabbet fit was
held as fixed and a vertical load of 17793N (approximately half
the rotor weight) was placed at the bearing centerline locations
(111mm from the end-shield front face on the flange mount and
20mm from the end-shield front face on the center mount).
Static deflections in the axial, horizontal and vertical directions
were calculated due to the resulting bending moment caused
by this vertical load. Figs. 11 and 12 show the exaggerated
deflection shapes and Table 3 shows the static deflections and
corresponding cross coupling stiffness values.

Fig. 9 Support Stiffness Bump Test Results, NDE Horizontal

DE Axial 2.592E+06 lb / in
Horizontal 11.898E+06 lb / in
Vertical 8.406E+06 lb / in
NDE Axial 2.679E+06 lb / in
Horizontal 11.490E+06 lb / in
Vertical 11.661E+06 lb / in
Fig. 11 End Shield Deflection, Flange Mounted Design
Table 2 Measured Dynamic Stiffness Values at 34.6 Hz

Fig. 12 End Shield Deflection, Flange Mounted Design with

Fig. 10 Calibrated Model on Motor Manufacturers Test Base,
Calculated (Left) Versus Measured (Right)
2. The effects of bearing and end shield design on
support stiffness: A stiffness analysis was performed on the
original end shield as well as a few additional variations of the
end shield design:
Design A) Original design - Flange mounted bearing with no
gussets
Design B) Design A with inboard gussets: 20mm thick,
320mm height with a 150 x 250 mm chamfer
Design C) Design A with no gussets but 25mm thicker plate
Design D) Center Mount with end shield thickness of 50mm
Gussets (Left); Centrally Mounted Design (Right)
A simulation was also done with the center mount endshield
having a load located at the flange mount location. The results
show that the geometry change from center to flange was not
that significant. The 15 times increase in stiffness from center to
flange was a result of the change of the load location. The
deflection shape in all cases gave an “S” shape due to the
bending moment. From Fig. 11 it can be seen that the section
from the OD of the endshield to the ID of the end shield is very
linear. The deflections occurred more on each end of this
region near the OD and ID. As a result, the gusset design had
very little impact on the original design and was not a
recommended method to increase overall stiffness in this case.
Due to this deflection shape, it was very difficult to retrofit the
original flange mount design to affect the deflection at the OD
and ID locations.

5
 Static Deflection (mm) be taken to avoid any system structural resonances that may
Design A Design B Design C Design D be lowered into the motor operating range.
Axial 0.04892 0.04605 0.01121 0.00312
Horizontal 0.00005 0.00004 0.00003 0.00002 E. The Effects of Flanged Mounted vs. Centrally Mounted
Vertical 0.00380 0.00360 0.00090 0.00034 Bearings on Critical Speed
Total Deflection 0.04907 0.04619 0.01125 0.00313
Static Stiffness (N/m) Bearing type, whether centrally mounted or flange mounted,
Design A Design B Design C Design D can also have a significant effect on bearing critical speed.
Axial 3.64E+08 3.86E+08 1.59E+09 5.71E+09 Centrally mounted bearings typically have a bearing midpoint
Horizontal 3.56E+11 4.45E+11 5.93E+11 8.90E+11 that is more inboard than a flange mounted bearing of the
Vertical 4.68E+09 4.94E+09 1.98E+10 5.23E+10 same size. A typical flange mounted and centrally mounted
bearing is shown in Fig. 14. The original design of the 4 pole
Total Deflection 3.63E+08 3.85E+08 1.58E+09 5.68E+09
Stiffness Multiple of Design A 1.06 4.36 15.66
example described above used a flange mounted style
bearing. In order to increase the rotordynamic critical, the
design was replaced with a centrally mounted bearing. The
Table 3 Static Deflections and Static Stiffnesses for the Four
End Shield Designs centrally mounted bearing reduced the overall bearing span
by 180mm and raised the critical speed from 2406 to 2571
3. End Shield Effect on Resonance: The end shield RPM, an increase of 165 RPM.
stiffness, which was calculated using finite element analysis,
was compared to the calibrated equivalent stiffness values
which were used to match test results. It was found that the
increase in end shield stiffness had little effect on the
resonance location. By calculation, the heavier end shield
increased the response by 25 RPM to an approximate value of
2431 RPM.
4. Test Results on Rubber: In order to simulate the
same motor on a flexible foundation, the motor was placed on
low stiffness hard rubber mats and a coast down test was
performed. The measured results are shown in Fig. 13. By
comparing this data with Fig. 10, it is observed that there is a
low frequency response at approximately 18.3 Hz on the
rubber mounts and that the critical appears at or above 2500
RPM.
Fig. 14 Flange Mounted Bearing (Left) Versus Centrally
Mounted Bearing (Right)

III. OTHER VARIATIONS THAT CAN CAUSE

VIBRATION

A. Motor on an ASD Driving a Reciprocating Compressor

Rotors in ASD applications are subject to significantly

Fig. 13 Motor on Rubber Mats
The stiffness and damping of the rubber mats is unknown,
but the test was performed to confirm the de-coupling effect
between the rotordynamic critical and the structure critical. In
this case, the rotordynamic critical stayed the same or even
increased slightly, which is counterintuitive. This data suggests
that the relative shaft vibration of the motor could be the same
or better on a flexible base, such as a motor mounting plate
placed on anti-vibration mounts (AVM’s). This improvement
may not always be seen in all motor designs, and care should
different service conditions than when used on a fixed power
supply. There is a much greater risk of running on a lateral or
torsional resonance when the system can potentially run at any
speed (from zero to full speed) versus one fixed speed. On the
right hand side of Fig. 15, one can see the relative order of the
pulsating torque as a function of 1-12 times the rotational
speed. This is dependent on the number of torsional pulsations
per revolution the driven equipment produces. For example, a
4-piston or 4-lobe compressor will produce a pulsating torque of
4 times the rotational speed. In this example there are two
fixed torsional resonant frequencies of the drive train. Both have
upper and lower speed ranges between which torsional
vibratory forces can be excessive if the forcing frequency
happens to be in this range.
What is critical to the user is that the torsional stiffness and
resonance have a significant tolerance due to manufacturing
variations and may change over time. As a result, special
precautions need to be taken. For example, it may be
necessary to enlarge the unsafe speed avoidance range. To
help understand this we will explain the possible variations.

6

Range to avoid
for 7th order
torsional force
Fig. 15 System Response Spectrum of a Typical Motor
1) Spider Shaft Stiffness: Components such as the motor
shaft stiffness are greatly influenced by the shrink onto the shaft
and how each spider arm is bonded to the core. On a typical
spider shaft as shown in Fig. 16, the question is: do all spider
arms contribute to the shaft stiffness or just the spider arm with
the keyway? If the shrink fit is enough to fix all the bars to the
core, then the key would have little value but may still be
provided for safety. If all arms contribute to the stiffness, then
the torsional critical would be raised. If only one arm
contributes, (for example the one with the key) this would result
in a much lower stiffness and resulting lower torsional critical
speed. Another consideration is whether or not the rotor core is
rigid along the length so that the force applied from the core to
the shaft is equal along the length of the mating surface. Or
would the laminated core slip between laminations causing an
uneven distribution of force and a bending of the spider arms
along the length. See Fig. 17 for the different bending modes of
the spider bar.
2) Bond between shaft and rotor: Another consideration
is whether the bond between the rotor and shaft changes over
time, either becoming loose or maybe rusted together, thereby
increasing the bond. All of these possibilities must be
considered in the analysis to determine the possible effects on
the range of the torsional resonances and range of speeds that
must be avoided. If a smaller avoidance range or block out
range is required, then a field test would be highly
recommended. At the same time, however, it is not
recommended to set the range so tight that minor changes
(which can be affected by temperature and climate changes) do
not later create a problem. Once set, it is important to monitor
the vibration and re-evaluate if vibration begins to increase over
time.
For example, in the diagram shown in Fig. 15, a 7th order
vibratory force would need to avoid running at speeds in the
range between 610-650 RPM and 1020-1100 RPM. If a second
resonance unrelated to the torsional resonance exists at the
same frequency, the magnitude of vibration could be greatly
increased. An example of this would be an air compression
chamber resonance (acoustical resonance).
7
Key along one Arm
Without key,
torque could be
distributed on
each arm
Fig. 16 Typical Spider Shaft
Fig 17 Spider Shaft Deflection Modes: Bending (Top) and
Twisting (Bottom)
In conclusion, to avoid problems it is critical to understand all
of the possible variations and tolerances, set a reasonable
speed avoidance range around the resonances, and field test to
verify the actual resonant frequencies. It is also important to
monitor vibration over time, retest and then make adjustments
as necessary.
B. How Ambient Temperature Changes Can Affect Vibration
This next example will illustrate how vibration can change
from acceptable levels to unacceptable levels as a result of
completely normal ambient temperature changes. It is not
unusual for motors and driven equipment to be used outdoors.
No matter what geographic location the product is located, it will
always experience ambient temperature swings. It is easier to
understand that the motor shaft height will grow from cold to hot
due to heat from inside the motor, and that the thermal growth
of the motor and driven equipment may not be the same.
However, it may be more difficult to understand how ambient
temperature swings can change these results. The following
example will demonstrate.
The motor shaft height on a 580 frame is 14.5 inches from
the foundation to the center of the shaft (shown in Fig. 18). As
the changes in shaft height are very small (0.001 inches of
displacement), it is important to first understand that the shaft
height has a significant tolerance. This tolerance is typically
compensated during installation by placing shims under the
motor feet. This is unimportant for the purposes of this
discussion, but it is important to note that the relative shaft
height can easily be adjusted during installation using shims.
Once installed, the shaft height will be fixed at approximately
14.5 inches, plus or minus a small shift in height depending on
temperature.
Fig. 18 Motor with 580 Frame Shaft Height
When the equipment gets hot, the shaft height will grow a
certain number of mils. A rule of thumb commonly used in the
industry for steel structures is: 1 mil per inch for every 100
degrees centigrade of temperature change. The stator winding
inside of the motor will normally have a temperature rise of 80
to 105 degrees Celsius. On a totally enclosed fin cooled
machine, the bearing housings could rise as much as the stator
winding rise. However, in this example an open machine was
used, and it was determined that the housing rise would be only
50% of the stator rise. For a class B rise (80 C), the housing
would then be 40 degrees Celsius. Using the above rule of
thumb, the shaft height rise would be:
1 mil/in per 100 deg C x 14.5in x 40/100 = 5.8 mils
If the driven equipment grows to the same center line as the
motor, there is no problem. If they grow at different rates,
misalignment and excessive vibration could occur. The normal
variation between shaft centerlines can not exceed 1.0 - 2.5
mils TIR (total indicator run-out) depending on the rotational
speed, unless a special coupling is used which can allow for
this excessive offset. It is important to note that the offset of
shaft centerlines is equal to ½ the TIR.
If the driven equipment grows at a much different rate,
significant vibration could occur. The driven equipment may
even be located on a different foundation and have a totally
different shaft height, which can affect its sensitivity to thermal
change. See the example in Fig. 19. To calculate the vertical
growth from cold to hot, one would need to know the thermal
change, the growth in the driven equipment and foundations,
and any other mounting medium that could affect the total shaft
height. If the coupling contains a spacer or spool piece
extension or if a flexible coupling is used (which many times
also includes a spacer), the misalignment allowance can be
increased. Fig. 20 provides an estimation on the length of
spacer required per inch of shaft offset.
8
Gearbox Motor
Fig. 19 Motor and Driven Equipment with Different Shaft
Heights
* “Soft foot” describes the condition where the four mounting feet are
not all in the same plane. Measured in mils (1 mil = .001 inches)
** To find angular misalignment in mils/inch of coupling diameter,
measure widest opening in mils, then subtract narrowest opening in
mils, and divide by diameter of coupling in inches.
Note: Up and down motion of driving and driven shafts with
temperature may be in either direction.
Fig. 20 Suggested Alignment Tolerances [3]
If a spacer is required after the product is installed, it may be
difficult or often impossible to move the motor away from the
driven equipment. However, special couplings are available
today that can be flexible in very short distances between shaft
ends. An example of this coupling will be discussed later in this
example.
Once the change from cold to hot for both the load and driven
equipment is known, adjustments can be made to the cold
alignment to compensate for the hot alignment. Keep in mind
that this compensation only applies to the vertical shaft height
change, and that either the motor or load shaft centers could
also move horizontally. This is common on gear boxes where
the distance between gears will tend to grow with increasing
temperature. Torque applied to the shaft can also cause the
equipment centers to move apart. This movement is harder to
measure and normally not done. However, it is common to
measure the hot alignment at standstill to ensure the
calculations are accurate.
The analysis so far has been fairly straight forward, but it has
not yet considered the effects of large ambient temperature
swings. In this example, the hot alignment was perfect under a
full-load condition, but the ambient changed a total of 50
degrees Celsius from -10 degrees C to + 40 degrees C. The
driven load was a water cooled gear box and the motor was air
cooled. The cooling water temperature remained constant with
ambient temperature. And for the sake of calculation, it can be
assumed that the gear box temperature also remained
constant. At the same time, the air cooled motor was directly
affected by the ambient air temperature, and as a result, the
motor temperature rose 50 degrees C with a calculated offset
as follows:
1 mil/in x 14.5in x 50/100 = 7.25. mils off-set
bearing was 1200 lbs based on a total rotor weight of 2400 lbs,
it would lighten the load to a point where the vibration would
become excessive. The result of unloading the bearing and the
corresponding vibration was modeled, and the results of this
analysis are shown in Fig. 22. This phenomenon was also
verified in the field under test. The vibration started at less than
1 mil at 1800 RPM, increased to 2 mils vibration at 6 mils
misalignment, and then climbed to 3-4 mils vibration as the
misalignment approached 12 mils. The problem was totally
eliminated by switching to a coupling shown in Fig. 23.

The installed coupling, which is fairly common and good for

many applications, is shown in Fig. 21. The coupling’s literature
also stated that it was capable of handling 10 mils of
misalignment. Although this coupling can take the force of
misalignment, it was not known how this force would affect the
performance of the drive train; therefore, the drive train had to
be evaluated.

Fig. 21 Coupling [4]

The force per mil of misalignment was measured to

understand the effect on vibration, and it was discovered to be Fig. 22 Vibration as a Result of Unloading the Bearing
relatively linear at approximately 100 lbs per mil of
misalignment. In this case, the 7.25 mils of misalignment
resulted in over 700 lbs of radial force on the motor drive end
bearing. When the force was in the same vertical direction as
the rotor weight (vertical down), the force started to approach
the bearing loading limit. The vibration on the drive end,
however, did not significantly change. The vibration on the non-
drive end increased slightly due to the bearing being off loaded,
but the vibration was still not excessive.
Now assume the misalignment was in the opposite direction.
In this case the hot alignment was perfect at the maximum
ambient temperature of 40 degree C and then the ambient
temperature dropped 50 deg C. Since the gear box temperature
did not change, the bearing was now being unloaded by 100 lbs
for every mil of misalignment. If the bearings were antifriction
bearings instead of sleeve bearings, the unloading would
eventually lead to a bearing loading below the minimum level
Fig. 23 Flexible Coupling [4]
required to minimize skidding. Skidding would eventually lead
to premature bearing failure. Sleeve bearings, however, require
a certain level of loading to remain stable and maintain the To confuse the issue even further, there were more than 50
stiffness required to minimize vibration. In an extreme case the of these systems in the field, and they all performed differently.
The quality of the alignment was inconsistent between units,
shaft could be lifted off its bearing and become totally
and the coupling unbalance was sometimes in phase with
dependent on the coupling and load bearing for any resistance
to movement. Since this set up would normally have minimal motor unbalance and sometimes out of phase, where it would
stiffness or resistance to movement, any unbalance of the actually decrease the overall vibration. At times, the magnetic
unbalance inside the motor would lift the rotor and off-load the
motor rotor or coupling would go virtually unchecked and could
bearing even further. Other applications would pull the rotor
vibrate out of control. There are other factors, such as magnetic
pull, that can also add or subtract from the force being applied down, loading the bearings even further. As a result, none of
to the bearing. In this case, where the rotor weight on each the sets were performing in the same way and only a few were
drastically different.

9
 Fig. 23 shows a coupling that can handle significant
misalignment. Normally the flange for the disc pack would be at
the end of the shaft. In this case, however, there was no room
for a spool piece between the flanges which was needed for
flexibility. In the picture the design has a flexible disc pack on
the left and a flexible disc pack on the right which can be
located against the motor housing and the driven equipment
housing. Housings are not shown in Fig. 23. Since this
application was already installed in the field and the shaft ends
were very close together, a special coupling was required. In
this case, the flanges were able to be turned away from the end
of the shaft and placed closer to the motor and the driven
equipment. The spool piece in the center was split in order to
separate the components for removal of the motor. This
provided all the flexibility that was needed. This coupling now
applied less than 10 lbs per mil of offset as compared to 100 lbs
per mil on the original coupling. Vibration remained unchanged
throughout all future misalignment conditions. Now all 50
applications in the field performed virtually the same and could
meet the vibration requirement of 1.5 mils as defined in API 541
[1].
In conclusion, these types of applications will have minimal
problems when the radial loading on one bearing does not
exceed 10% of the rotor weight. In the original drive train with
the original rigid coupling, 10% would have amounted to only
120 lbs or 1 mil offset maximum. Within that limit the vibration
increase and bearing life reduction would not be significant. Any
greater force would require the use of a flexible coupling to
guarantee a long life.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
As shown in these examples, even a small change in
manufacturing tolerances or dimensions can have a dramatic
effect on performance. These effects can also be seen in the
field due to wear or a changing environment. When applying a
product in any application, specifically in critical applications, it
is important to ensure that enough margin is allowed so that
these variations (which may not always be small) do not
adversely affect the performance of the machine. The 15%
margin on the critical speed may be enough to compensate for
wear, viscosity or thermal changes, but it may not be enough to
compensate for a base with varying flexibility, whether by
design or otherwise. In some cases it may be possible to
intentionally design a weak motor foundation to drop a motor
lateral resonance, which was once above operating speed on a
massive foundation, to below operating speed. However, great
care should be taken in this case, and close coordination with
all manufacturers is recommended. In areas such as torsional
resonances, with many influencing factors in the drive train, it
may be necessary to allow for additional tolerances resulting
from manufacturing variations. Regardless, when assembling a
system with multiple components, consider utilizing an expert
with experience in designing the integration of multiple systems.
10
V. REFERENCES
[1] API 541, June 2004, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington D.C.: API.
[2] RENK, Manual for the Application of RENK Sliding
Bearings, RENK Corporation, Duncan, S.C. 2001.
[3] EASA, Mechanical Reference Handbook, Electrical
Apparatus Association, Inc 1993.
[4] Siemens, Flender Standard Couplings, Siemens AG,
Bocholt, Germany.
VI. VITA
William R. Finley received his B.S. Degree in Electrical
Engineering from the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
He is presently Sr. Director of Technology for Siemens Industry,
Inc. Drive Technologies He has worked in various engineering
design and management positions, including Electrical and
Mechanical Design, Product Development, Quotation,
Computer Systems, and Business Unit and Operations
Management. He is a senior member of IEEE and has
previously published more than 25 technical papers. He is
currently active in over 10 NEMA, IEEE and IEC working
groups and sub-committees. He is Chairman of the
International Standardization Group & Vice Chair of the
Technical committee of NEMA, Chair of CANENA THC 2 and is
the Chief Delegate to IEC TC2.
Scott Kreitzer graduated with a BSME degree from Wright
State University in 1993 and received a Master of Science
degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of
Cincinnati in 1995. Scott worked for Reuland Electric in 1994 as
a Design Engineer developing high-speed AC induction motors.
He is currently the Manager of Engineering in the Above NEMA
motor development group at Siemens Industry, Inc. Scott is an
associate member of IEEE.
Rajendra Mistry, PE received his B.E. degree in Mechanical
Engineering in India and a Bachelor of Technology in Electrical
Engineering in the U.K. He is currently a Principal Engineer at
Siemens Industry, Inc. (Norwood) in the engineering
development department responsible for developing Above
NEMA induction motors. In addition to his industry role, he has
attended several courses in vibrations, design for
manufacturing, concurrent engineering, and digital signal
processing. He is also responsible for certifying induction
motors for Hazardous location. He is a member of American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Material
Science International (ASM) and American Foundry Society
(AFS). He holds four patents for components in hydraulic
elevators and on Induction motors.
Ryan Queen received his B.S. degree in Mechanical
Engineering in 2006 from The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio. He is currently a Sr. Product Engineer in the
Advanced Technologies group of Siemens Industry, Inc. He is
responsible for advanced mechanical calculation, design, and
simulation of AC induction motors and components. He also
participates in Siemens Network of Competency for both
rotordynamics and noise and machine vibration.