Gearbox White Paper
Gearbox White Paper
Gearbox White Paper
OF GEARBOXES
Written By
James C. Robinson,
Technical Consultant, IMI division of PCB Piezotronics
Curated By
Meredith Christman,
Product Marketing Manager, IMI division of PCB Piezotronics
Article by:
James C Robinson, Technical Consultant, IMI division of PCB Piezotronics
Curated by:
Meredith Christman, Product Marketing Manager, IMI division of PCB Piezotronics
INTRODUCTION
Gearboxes are a common component in many industries, including chemicals, sugar, steel, mining, plastics, oil &
gas, power and petrochemical. Because their operation is essential to many manufacturing processes, planned
downtime is inconvenient and unplanned downtime can be catastrophic.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate a wide variety of fault types and the importance of employing
proper sensors and analysis tools. Particular emphasis is placed on vibration monitoring employing
accelerometers as sensors on industrial gearboxes.
Potential Faults of Gearboxes: Prior to selecting sensors and addressing their mounting on a gearbox, it will first
be beneficial to remind ourselves of the characteristics of the vibration signature that can be expected from
common gearbox faults. For example, if there is a crack in a gear, it will likely introduce a slight speed change
when the defective tooth enters the load zone. This leads to impacting every time that tooth enters into its load
carrying responsibility (typically once per revolution of that gear). Now consider a situation where there is a lack
of sufficient lubrication for the gear teeth going into and out of the load zone. This leads to friction between the
teeth with the maximum activity typically occurring twice per tooth mesh (once on the addendum and once on
the dedendum). Of course, both friction and impacting can also occur within the gearboxes. In gearboxes,
impacting will generally be periodic and friction generally non-periodic (random).
If a fault is present that is generating stress wave activity on a set of meshing gears, that energy will be
transmitted to the outer housing via the shafts where the gear set is attached through the bearings (providing
they are rolling element bearings). An accelerometer fastened to the outer surface in the proximity of that
bearing would capture the stress wave activity providing the accelerometer has sufficient bandwidth and
sensitivity. If the bearing is a sleeve bearing, significant attenuation will occur to the stress waves in coupling
across the gap from inner race to outer race and thus may not be sufficient for capture by the sensor. A
proximity probe lacks sufficient sensitivity for the relatively high frequency stress wave activity.
In addition to the relatively high frequencies present in the stress wave packets generated by friction and
impacting, the lower frequencies generated by faults such as misalignment, looseness and balancing issues must
also be captured and analyzed. These stress wave packets contain frequencies in one of the following two
ranges:
• About 0.3 times running speed to about 3.25 times the gear meshing frequency.
• About 0.3 times running speed to about 50 times running speed.
The analysis of the low-frequency band is carried out by capturing a time waveform and proceeding to
transform that time waveform into spectra data on which most of the diagnostics are carried out. For the high-
frequency band, the most common procedure is to run the signal from the sensor through a high-pass filter
followed by full-wave rectification. The rectified signal is then demodulated to extract any periodic or random
1
activity that is occurring. If periodic or random activity is occurring, the analyst needs to know the periodic rate
as well as the amplitude of the activity.
Classic demodulation techniques do not
maintain the true g-level. The cases
presented in this paper use the PeakVue™
methodology developed by Emerson Process
Management, which does maintain the true
peak g-level.
2
To explore the impact that sensor mounting has on the sensor frequency response, frequency response data
was captured (presented in Figure 3) for a sensor that was:
• Mounted with a stud with grease on a flat dry surface.
• Mounted with a stud without grease on a flat dry surface.
• Mounted with a flat magnet on a flat clean surface.
• Mounted with a dual-rail magnet mounted on smooth curved surface.
• Mounted with a dual-rail magnet mounted on rough curved surface.
• Mounted with a dual-rail magnet mounted on painted curved surface.
For faults that manifest themselves in the frequency range of less than 2 kHz such as alignment, unbalance and
looseness, the results would be independent of how the sensor is mounted. For faults identified with higher
frequencies (impacting and friction), the results would be highly dependent to how the sensor is mounted
ranging from no response to distorted response.
Of course, the best way to mount would be stud-mount with a specified torque. This could get expensive as it
requires a dedicated accelerometer at every measurement point. An acceptable alternative mounting would be
to use a flat magnet placed on a flat smooth surface such as a mounting pad. The flat magnet approach to all
measurements points combined with stud mounting the sensor in radial direction on the inboard and outboard
ends would be a recommended
method for sensor mounting.
3
acquired and is presented in Figure 5. The peak-to-peak g-level is less than 10 g’s, and the spectral data is a “ski
slope”. This is typical for an ICP® accelerometer that is being overloaded. The sensor was a 100 mV/g
accelerometer with a 9-11 VDC bias voltage.
4
SECTION 3: MULTI DRILL HEAD GEARBOX
Spectra data taken after the motor shaft replacement is presented in Figures 13 and 14. The resolution is
sufficient to clearly show the gear mesh frequency at 2,275 Hz as well as a probable torsional resonance at a
frequency slightly greater than gear mesh frequency. The periodic activity that was seen in the high-frequency
rectified waveform data before motor shaft change is gone. Additionally, the periodic activity that was seen at
about 1,000 Hz in low-frequency spectra data before motor shaft change is also now absent. The most obvious
change between the two sets of data is the significant increase in the vibration waveform amplitude. The peak-
to-peak waveform in the low-frequency data went from 14 g’s peak-to-peak to 40 g’s peak-to-peak. A similar
change occurred in the high-frequency rectified waveform. This is probably because the torsional stiffness
increased with the tightening of the system at the motor shaft/key thereby increasing the torsional resonance
frequency. The increase in vibration is more desirable than the shaft/key interaction.
6
To assure the faulty bearing was bearing #3 and not bearing #1 or bearing #2, data was acquired from
measurement point #1 at same time as the data in Figure 17 was acquired. The peak g-level in the high-
frequency data from measurement point # 1 was 25 g’s versus the 54 g’s from measurement point #2. The
defective bearing was concluded to be bearing #3. Frequent monitoring with the sensor set on measurement
point #2 was then carried out. The peak g-level trend is presented in Figure 18. From the time the 50 g peak
level was detected, it took about 25 days to get the bearing replaced. A picture of the defective bearing is
presented in Figure 19. The peak g-level recorded was about 80 g’s.
7
The spectra data indicates a significant event is occurring once per output shaft revolution. The waveform
clearly demonstrates there are two distinct impulses per turn that could mean there are two cracks on one gear.
When inspected, two cracked teeth on one gear were found.
8
The waveform and spectra data for the low-frequency band are presented in Figure 24. The peak-to-peak g-level
in the waveform data is about 1.1g’s, which is not considered to be indicative of a problem. The high-frequency
band rectified waveform and spectra data are presented in Figure 25. There is a spike (about 14 g’s) occurring
once per revolution of the shaft immediately below measurement points G5 and G6. This is the expected
signature from a cracked tooth in the gear immediately below measurement point G5. Upon inspection of this
gear, it was found to have a crack in the root.
9
higher frequencies than when impacting
occurs). To illustrate this type of failure, a case
from a 1.5 MW wind turbine generator gearbox
has been chosen for illustration. The gearbox is
made up of a three-wheel planetary gear
section driving a two-stage spur gear section.
Both sections were housed in a compact
housing. An online continuous vibration
monitoring system was monitoring the
gearbox.
The data in Figure 30 was chosen to illustrate how the fault signature can vary over reasonably short times. Each
rectified time waveform is for a period encompassing 18 revolutions (2 seconds) of the intermediate shaft
turning at 538 rpm. The last trace of data in Figure 30 is the same set of rectified waveform data presented in
Figure 29. The three remaining data traces were acquired one day previous.
There is very little fault signature showing up in the first rectified waveform data. In the middle two traces of
rectified waveform data, a fault signature is present but with considerable variability. If the signature was a
result of impacting from a defect in the inner surface of the outer race, the rectified time waveform would not
be expected to have the variability seen in Figure 29.
SECTION 9: CONCLUSIONS
Several faults common to gearboxes were presented in this paper. The objectives were to:
• Demonstrate a wide variation in fault types.
• Demonstrate the importance of employing proper sensors and analysis tools.
Many faults generate a short burst of stress wave activity (from impacting and friction) that requires sensors
responsive up to 15-25 kHz, such as IMI Model 603C01. The sensor frequency response is strongly dependent on
how the sensor is attached to the surface of the machine. Accelerometer mounting by stud, by flat magnet on a
10
flat smooth surface and by dual-rail magnet on a curved surface (smooth, rough or painted) were all considered.
The conclusion was that the stud-mounting technique was the preferred choice. Mounting the accelerometer
with a flat magnet attached to a smooth, flat surface provided sufficient bandwidth for impacting and friction
detection. The use of a two-rail magnet on a curved surface would miss several situations where impacting and
friction was occurring.
The analysis tools used in this study consisted of the normal spectra data in velocity units and waveform in
acceleration units. To cover the high frequency burst of stress waves from impacting, friction and fatiguing, the
waveform used was the band-limited rectified signal. The band-limited rectified signal was 0.5-40 kHz, 1.0-40
kHz or 2.0-40 kHz. The rectified waveform was also transformed to spectra data in acceleration units. In addition
to waveform and spectra data, the autocorrelation coefficient data was computed from the waveform data
graphically displaced. It was a very useful diagnostic tool in both fault identification and severity assessment.
11
IMI Sensors, a division of PCB Piezotronics, Inc. manufactures industrial vibration monitoring
instrumentation, such as accelerometers, vibration transmitters and switches that feature rugged
stainless steel housings and survive in harsh environments like paper and steel mills, mines, gas
turbines, water treatment facilities and power plants. Integrating with portable analyzers and
PLC’s, IMI instrumentation helps maintenance departments reduce downtime and protect critical
3425 Walden Avenue, Depew, NY 14043-2495 USA machinery. Visit IMI Sensors at www.pcb.com. PCB Piezotronics, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
Toll-Free in the USA: 800 959 4464 of MTS Systems Corporation. Additional information on MTS can be found at www.mts.com.
Phone: 1 716 684 0001 | Email: [email protected]
© 2019 PCB Piezotronics, Inc. In the interest of constant product improvement, specifications are subject to change without notice. PCB ®, ICP ®, Swiveler ®, Modally Tuned ®, and IMI ® with associated logo are registered trademarks of PCB
Piezotronics, Inc. in the United States. ICP ® is a registered trademark of PCB Piezotronics Europe GmbH in Germany and other countries. UHT-12 TM is a trademark of PCB Piezotronics, Inc. SensorLine SM is a service mark of PCB Piezotronics. Inc.
SWIFT® is a registered trademark of MTS Systems Corporation in the United States.
WPL_82_0219
MTS Sensors, a division of MTS Systems Corporation (NASDAQ: MTSC), vastly expanded its range of products and solutions after MTS acquired
2 PCB Piezotronics, Inc. in July, 2016. PCB Piezotronics, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of MTS Systems Corp.; IMI Sensors and Larson Davis are
divisions of PCB Piezotronics, Inc.; Accumetrics, Inc. and The Modal Shop, Inc. are subsidiaries of PCB Piezotronics, Inc.