APPLICATIONS

RELATIONSHIP
of Influence Coefficients Between
Static-Couple and Multiplane
Methods on Two-Plane Balancing

This article was originally published in Vol. 131, Issue 1 of the Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) International. It is reprinted here with the permission of ASME, which retains all copyrights.

nbalance accounts for the majority synchronous vibration levels. Topics on balancing
of high vibration problems in rotating have been of great interest to rotor dynamic
machines. High synchronous forces researchers and engineers [1,2]. Typically a turbine,
and vibration amplitudes due to mass compressor, or generator section is supported
unbalance produce excessive stresses by two bearings. This often requires two-plane
on the rotor and also affect bearings and casing, balancing for most cases where cross-effects
thus reducing the life span of the machine. The among different sections through couplings
source of unbalance may be imperfect manu- are trivial. There are a few papers discussing
facturing processes including assembly variation two-plane balancing with amplitude [3] or phase
and material nonhomogeneity. Though rotors [4] only. These approaches would often require
are typically balanced by manufacturers before more runs in the field and may increase both the
they are installed for service, unbalance may still time and the cost for users of rotating machinery.
occur afterward for various reasons. These include The influence coefficient method is typically used
deposits or erosion on (and shifting of) rotating for field trim balancing. There are basically two
parts, as well as thermal effects. Therefore, in approaches to apply this method. The first one is to
many cases, field balancing is required to reduce treat it as a multiplane balance problem involving

John J. Yu, Ph.D. – Senior Engineer, Machinery Diagnostics – ­Bently Nevada Asset Condition Monitoring – GE Energy – [email protected]

7 2 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

a 2X2 matrix of complex influence coefficients, as relationship of influence coefficients was given
Thearle [5] first presented in 1934. In this approach, between these two approaches. It was also some-
two direct influence coefficients along with two times believed that static-couple balance could
cross-effect influence coefficients are generated not reduce both static and couple vibration vectors
so that correction weights at two balance planes successfully because static (couple) weights
can be determined. The second one is to treat affect couple (static) response. In this paper, the
it as two single-plane balance problems using multiplane approach with a 2X2 influence coef-
static and couple components, respectively. The ficient matrix is first presented, followed by the
latter approach has been used extensively in the static-couple approach. In the latter approach,
field [6,7]. Having valid influence coefficient data cross-effects between the static (couple) weights
makes balancing much easier. Influence coefficient and the couple (static) component are introduced.
data can be employed to save trial runs for many Then, an analytical relationship of influence coef-
machines of the same design or for future balanc- ficients between these two approaches is derived
ing on the same machine. For two-plane balancing for two-plane balancing. Real examples are given
with influence coefficients, either static-couple or to verify the developed analytical conversion
multiplane approaches can be used. However, no formulas as well as to show their application.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 7 3
APPLICATIONS

Multiplane Method where superscript (0) represents status without weights

and superscripts (1) and (2) denote status with the first
As shown in Figure 1, synchronous 1X vibration vectors
and second sets of weights. Note that the two sets of
are expressed as A1 and A2 measured by probes 1 and 2,
weights must be chosen in a way that the weight matrix
respectively.
is not singular.
Their orientations a1 and a2 are defined by phase
lagging relative to their probe orientation (Figure 1 Static-Couple Method
shows the instant when the Keyphasor* pulse occurs). In the static-couple approach, as shown in Figure 2,
Balance weights at weight planes 1 and 2 are expressed vibration vectors at both ends of the shaft are
as W1 and W2 with their orientations b1 and b2 refer- expressed as the combination of static and couple
enced to the probe orientation, respectively. Assuming components as follows:
that the system is linear, changes in 1X vibration vectors (3)
due to weight placement can be given by
where S and C are defined as static and couple
(1) components, respectively.

The static influence coefficient is computed based on

vectorial changes in S due to the static weights WS
where h11, h12, h21, and h22 form the 2x2 influence coeffi- (which can be sometimes placed as one weight in the
cient matrix. Superscripts “(0)” and “(1)” represent status middle balance plane), as shown in Figure 2. The couple
without and with weights W1 and W2, respectively. influence coefficient is calculated based on vectorial
Typically, the four influence coefficients, through two changes in C due to the couple weights WC (180 deg
trial runs, can be computed as follows: apart at two ends). When the static (couple) component
is dominant, the static (couple) weight approach alone
may be adopted. In the case that both components are
high, up to four runs are often used to balance both
static and couple components.
(2)

Figure 1. Diagram of vibration and weight vectors when the Keyphasor pulse occurs.

7 4 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

However, cross-effects of static weights to the couple where ∆SS is the static vibration component with static
component or couple weights to the static component weight(s)—static vibration component without static
have often been neglected when performing balancing. weight(s) and ∆CS is the couple vibration component
A nonsymmetric rotor with respect to its two ends, or with static weight(s)—couple vibration component
strongly influenced by its adjacent section via coupling, without static weight(s).
might have significant cross-effects.
Similarly, having vibration data before and after couple
This article introduces the following static-couple weight placement WC (without static weights) yields
balance model to include these cross-effects:
(7)
(4) and

(8)

where superscripts (0)and (1) represent status without

and with static weight(s) WS and/or couple weights WC.
where ∆CC is the couple vibration component with
Equation (4) also applies to the case where the static
couple weight(s)—couple vibration component without
weight WS is placed in the middle plane instead of two
couple weights and ∆SC is the static vibration compo-
end planes. The above four influence coefficients can be
nent with weight(s)—static vibration component without
computed by placing static/couple weights.
couple weights.
Having vibration data before and after static weight(s)
Equations (5) and (7) have been widely used to compute
placement WS (without couple weights) yields
the effect of static weight(s) to the static component and
the effect of couple weights to the couple component,
(5)
respectively. However, the cross-effect of static
and weight(s) to the couple component or couple weights
to the static component has not been introduced so
(6)
far and has often been assumed to be zero. In a real

Figure 2. Diagram of static/couple vibration and weight vectors when the Keyphasor pulse occurs.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 7 5
APPLICATIONS

rotor where asymmetry exists due to rotor structure or

coupling effects, the cross-effect could be significant. (11)
Equations (6) and (8) include these cross-effects. After and

both static and couple balancing without considering

the cross-effects, residual unbalance response could
where (12)
still be high. However, if these four influence coefficients
are obtained, both the static and couple vibration ∆A1,C = A1 with couple weights − A1 without couple
components can be effectively reduced by applying weights
appropriate static and couple weights. Thus synchro- ∆A2,C = A2 with couple weights − A2 without couple
nous vibration levels at plane 1 (A1=S +C) and plane 2 weights
(A2=S −C) will be reduced accordingly.
Combining Equations (5), (9), and (10) yields (note that
Equation (4) shows that vibration can be effectively
∆SS=∆A1,S+∆A2,S/2)
reduced using the static-couple approach by including
(13)
cross-effects. There appears no need to reduce the
static (or the couple) component perfectly with the static Combining Equations (6), (9), and (10) yields (note that
(or the couple) weights before making a trial run with ∆CS=(∆A1,S −∆A2,S)/2)
the couple (or the static) weights, if both the static and
(14)
couple weights are going to be tried. After trial runs with
static and couple weights, respectively, all direct and Combining Equations (7), (11), and (12) yields (note that
cross-effects can be obtained, as shown in Equation 4. ∆CC=(∆A1,C −∆A2,C)/2)

When the static or the couple component appears to (15)

be larger, only static weight(s) or couple weights are Combining Equations (8), (11), and (12) yields (note that
sometimes used. An optimized static or couple weight ∆SC=(∆A1,C +∆A2,C)/2)
solution can be obtained to include the cross-effect.
(16)
Sometimes one needs to know individual probe influ-
ence due to static or couple weights. The static weight Using Equations (13)–(16), individual probe influence
influence to probes near planes 1 and 2 can be given by vectors near plane 1 or 2 due to static or couple weights
can also be expressed in terms of static or couple influ-
(9) ence vectors as follows:
and (17)

(18)
(10)
where
∆A1,S = A1 with static weight(s) − A1 without static (19)
weight(s)
(20)
∆A2,S = A2 with static weight(s) − A2 without static
Note that all the above equations apply to cases where
weight(s)
static weights are placed either at the middle balance
Similarly, the couple weight influence to probes near weight plane only or at two end balance weight planes
planes 1 and 2 can be given by with the same amount of weights in the same orienta-
tion. Couple weights are always defined throughout the
paper as placement at two end balance planes with the
same amount of weights in the opposite orientation (180
deg apart).
7 6 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009
 APPLICATIONS

Relationship of Influence Coefficients Applying arbitrary static weights WS only at planes 1

Between the Two Methods and 2, Equation (1) after replacing W1 and W2 each with
WS can be reformulated to
When performing balancing in the field, sometimes the
number of weights or the amount of weights (heavy (21a)
metal weights may not be allowed due to high tempera-
ture on some rotors such as high pressure (HP) section) (21b)
is limited at balance planes. In this case, even if a 2X2
influence coefficient matrix is available that may lead Applying the same static weights WS only at planes
to placement of a large amount of weights at two end 1 and 2, Equation (4) after setting WC=0 can be
planes, one would prefer to use less amounts of static reformulated to
or couple weights only to reduce vibration to acceptable (22a)
levels. Using either static or couple weights would
depend on which component is dominant and which (22b)
weight placement is more efficient (having sensitivity of
Addition of Equations (21a) and (21b) followed by
static and couple influence vectors would help to deter-
subtraction of Equation (22) with application of Equation
mine). Having influence vectors for static and couple
(3) yields
weights with the same phase lag reference for weights
and vibration vectors (suggested to use for balancing, (23)
preferably aligned to the probe orientation), one would
Subtraction of Equation (21) from Equation (21) followed
be able to see how the rotor is running before, after,
by subtraction of Equation (22) with application of
or close to the translational, pivotal, or other bending
Equation (3) yields
modes based on phase lag angle of static and couple
influence vectors. The above-mentioned questions can (24)
be answered by conversion of influence vectors from
the multiplane method to the static-couple method. Similarly, applying arbitrary couple weights WC only at
planes 1 and 2, Equation (1) after replacing W1 with WC
On the other hand, one would also need to know
and W2 with −WC can be reformulated to
influence vectors expressed in terms of the multiplane
method from known static and couple influence vectors (25a)
in some cases. Sometimes only one end balance plane
can be used due to unavailable empty holes or slot (25b)
section for weights, or difficult access on the other Applying the same static weights WC at planes 1 and 2,
end plane. In thermal bow/rub situations, calculating Equation (4) after setting WS=0 can be reformulated to
additional unbalance (caused by thermal bow) using
vibration excursion vectors compensated by the normal (26a)
running condition vectors based on the multiplane
influence model would help to determine the thermal (26b)
bow/rub location (close to balance plane 1 or 2). Using Addition of Equations (25a) and (25b) followed by
the 2X2 multiplane method would also directly lead subtraction of Equations (26a) with application of
to weight placement at planes 1 and 2. Those would Equation (3) yields
require conversion of influence vectors from the static-
(27)
couple method to the multiplane method.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 7 7
APPLICATIONS

Subtraction of Equation (25b) from Equation (25a) Note that all the above equations in this section apply
followed by subtraction of Equation (26b) with to cases where static weights are placed at two end
application of Equation (3) yields balance weight planes. In case the static weight is
defined as placement at the middle balance plane,
(28)
Equations (27), (28), (39), and (40) are still valid.

Thus, conversion equations of influence vectors from

the multiplane method to the static-couple method are
given by Equation (23) (direct static influence vector),
Equation (24) (cross-effect of the couple component due
to static weights), Equation (27) (cross-effect of the static
component due to couple weights), and Equation (28) Figure 3. Rotor kit for balance calculations.
(direct couple influence vector). Combining Equations
(23), (24), (27), and (28), conversion of influence vectors
from the static-couple method to the multiplane method Example 1 – Rotor Kit Verification
can also be given by The first real example presented here is mainly to verify
the above-developed equations of influence coefficient
(29)
conversion between multiplane and static-couple
(30) methods. In this example, a Bently Nevada* RK-4 rotor
kit was used, as shown in Figure 3. A shaft with the
(31) diameter and length of 0.01 m and 0.56 m, respectively,
was supported by two brass bushing bearings and
(32)
driven by a 75 W motor. Three 0.8 kg disks were
attached to the shaft with one close to bearing No. 1
Combining Equations (13)–(16) and (29)–(32) yields
and two close to bearing No. 2, thus having asymmetri-
influence vectors with the multiplane method expressed
cal mass distribution with respect to the two bearings.
by individual probe influence vectors due to static and
The rotor was also supported by a midspan spring to
couple weights as follows:
prevent excessive bow in the middle of the shaft. The
(33) data acquisition and processing system consisted of
two pairs of X-Y displacement proximity probes, one
(34) speed probe, and one Keyphasor* probe for speed and
phase measurement. Two balance weight planes 1 and
(35)
2 are located adjacent to bearing Nos. 1 and 2 as well
(36) as their corresponding proximity probes. The shaft was
rotated in the counterclockwise direction when viewed
Combining Equations (33)–(36), individual probe from the motor to bearing #2.
influence vectors due to static or couple weights can
In this example, the running speed for balance was set
also be expressed in terms of influence vectors with
at 4800 rpm for demonstration. Since higher amplitudes
the multiplane method as follows:
occurred in the horizontal direction at the running speed,
(37) influence coefficient calculations were carried out in
terms of vibration readings measured by the two hori-
(38)
zontal probes located 90 deg right of top, as shown in
(39) Figure 3. From an initial run without any balance weight
placement, synchronous vibration vectors at bearing
(40) Nos. 1 and 2 in the horizontal direction were as follows:

7 8 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

Figure 4 shows polar plots and vibration vectors at

approximately 4800 rpm for three different runs as well
as two sets of weight placement. Using Equation (2), the
With the following two 0.4 g weights placed at planes 1 influence coefficient matrix for the multiplane method
and 2 (see Figure 4): is computed as

the corresponding vibration vectors became

Assuming that synchronous vibration vectors are lin-

early proportional to applied balance weights, arbitrary
Placing the following two 0.8 g weights at planes 1 and 2
two weight placement sets (as long as its weight matrix
(see Figure 4) after removing the above two 0.4 g weights
is not ill conditioned or singular) should yield the same
influence coefficient matrix for this multiplane method at
this running speed. Actually, the other two sets of weight
corresponded to the following vibration vectors:
placement (placing only one weight at one time at one
plane followed by the other plane) were tried, which
produced the results very close to the above ones.

Figure 4. Polar plots and vibration vectors at approximately 4800 rpm for initial run, and first and second trial
runs with weight placements.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 7 9
APPLICATIONS

Thus, the above four values within the matrix are the It is shown from this real example that influence vectors
influence coefficients for the multiplane method at for the static-couple method can be calculated from
this running speed. It is noted that the above two sets known influence coefficients h11, h12, h21, and h22 in a
of weight placement were also just for couple and 2X2 matrix for the multiplane method, without having to
static weights, respectively. Therefore, the influence place trial static or couple weights. Since Eqs. (29)–(32)
coefficients for the static-couple method can be directly are equivalent to Equations (23), (24), (27), and (28), and
computed. Using Equation (3), static and couple vibra- Equations (33)–(36) are equivalent to Equations (37)–(40),
tion vectors for the initial run without weight placement, Equations (29)–(36) also hold true in this example.
the first trial run with couple weights Therefore, influence coefficients h11, h12, h21, and h22
can also be obtained from influence vectors for the
static-couple method without having to place two sets
and the second trial run with static weights
of trial weights.

In this example, it is found that static weights affect the

can be computed, respectively, as follows:
couple vibration vector (HCS is about 2.8 mils pp/g < 24
deg) and that couple weights affect the static vibration
vectors HSC is about 4.0 mils pp/g < 39 deg). These
cross-effects are even higher than the direct static
influence vector HSS about 1.1 mils pp/ g < 161 deg).
The high influence vector HCC about 16.6 mils pp/g < 44
deg) indicates a very sensitive couple weight effect. The
phase readings in HSS and HCC indicate that the rotor kit
runs after the first bending resonance speed and before
Note that the second bending resonance speed. This is in good
agreement with the polar plots of Figure 4.

Using either Equation (1) for multiplane method or

Equation (4) for static-couple method, the required
and
balance weights to offset the initial vibration at two
planes can be determined. The former approach yields
the following balance weights:

The influence vectors due to static and couple weights

placed at two ends are computed directly from their
definition, as shown in the right column of Table 1.

The left column of Table 1 shows calculated results,

using Equations (23), (24), (27), (28), and (37)–(40),
based on known h11, h12, h21, and h22 values from the
multiplane method. It is found that the results in the left
column are the same as those in the right column; small
differences appear just due to rounding errors during
computations.

8 0 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

Table 1. Verification of influence coefficient conversion between multiplane and static-couple

methods on a real example.

The latter approach yields the following weights:

Note that

The above two sets of weights are identical. Among

available weights and holes, the final weights and their
orientations were chosen as follows:

Figure 5 shows synchronous orbits before and after

the balance with the above weights. The synchronous
vibration level has been reduced from around 6 mils to Figure 5. Synchronous orbits before and after
less than 1 mil after placing the above weights. balance at bearing Nos. 1 and 2.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 8 1
APPLICATIONS

Example 2 – Steam Turbine

Generator Application
The second example is to demonstrate how to apply
the developed conversion between the two methods
when an influence coefficient matrix for the multiplane
method is known. In this example, high synchronous
vibration due to unbalance was observed via proximity
probes on a 66 MW hydrogen-cooled generator driven
by a steam turbine. The machine is a two-pole genera-
tor and was run at 3600 rpm. It rotates clockwise when
viewed from the turbine towards the generator. The
two generator bearings were named as bearing Nos.
5 (drive-end) and 6 (nondrive-end). A pair of X-Y probes Figure 6. Polar plots and vibration vectors at
was installed at 45 deg left and right at bearing No. 5 3600 rpm before and after balance.
while another pair of X-Y probes was installed at 60 deg
left and 30 deg right at bearing No. 6.

Table 2. Calculated influence vectors in static and

couple methods from the known influence vectors
in the multiplane method, without placing static Figure 7. Synchronous orbits at 3600 rpm before
or couple trial weights. and after balance.

8 2 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

Synchronous vibration amplitudes were higher on These large amounts of weight at two planes were
Y-probes than on X-probes at the two bearings on unable to be placed into empty holes or achieved by
the generator. Balance calculations were therefore adjustment of existing weights. An alternative needed
conducted on Y-probes only. In order to use the to be found. The study of influence data was then
same nomenclature and subscripts for the equations performed. Influence coefficients for static and couple
developed earlier, probes and weight plane at bearing weights were calculated based on known h11, h12, h21,
No. 5 are denoted as 1 while those at bearing No. 6 are and h22 values without placing static or couple trial
denoted as 2. As shown in Figure 6, Y-probe readings at weights. Note that the Y-probe at bearing No. 6 was
bearing Nos. 5 and 6 were not parallel to the Y-probe at bearing No. 5. In order to
evaluate static and couple effects better, the synchro-
nous vector at bearing No. 6, as though it was measured
by a proximity probe at 45 deg left, needed to be known,
and h11, h12, h21, and h22 needed to be applicable to this
change. Although the above-mentioned synchronous
vector at bearing No. 6 could be determined by using
The previous influence coefficients used for the
vectors from both X and Y probes, h11, h12, h21, and h22
multiplane method were given by
might not fit the new defined vector. Therefore, the origi-
nal vector was used as the new vector except its phase
was lagged an addition 15 deg. Thus, the two vibration
vectors referenced to 45 deg left became

where h11, h12, h21, and h22 were applied to Equation (1)
in which synchronous vibration vectors were defined as and the influence matrix with both vibration and weight
original ones from the two Y-probes 1 was referenced vectors referenced to 45 deg left became
to 45 deg left and 2 was referenced to 60 deg left, while
weights at both ends were all referenced to 45 deg left.
The balance plane radius where weights were placed
was about 0.254 m (10 in.) with the one at bearing No.
5 slightly larger than that at bearing No. 6 (about 1%
difference). Note that the radius difference between the Table 2 shows calculated influence vectors for static
two weight planes would not affect the validity of all and couple weights from known influence vectors
the equations developed in the paper. Weight planes h11, h12, h21, and h22 used for the multiplane method,
at bearing Nos. 5 and 6 had 44 and 36 holes for weight without having to place static or couple trial weights.
placement, respectively. Their weight sizes were also The direct couple influence vector HCC was the most
different between two planes. sensitive one (0.0111 mil pp/g 131 deg), indicating that
appropriate couple weights would effectively reduce the
Using Eq. (1), the required balance weights at two planes
current synchronous vibration level, especially to bear-
appeared to be
ing No. 5 (h1,C=0.0135 mil pp/g 131 deg). Static weights
appeared not to be sensitive to synchronous vibration
vectors at the running speed for this generator, as
shown in Table 2. The current static and couple vibration
vectors were as follows:

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 8 3
APPLICATIONS

2. Conversion equations of influence vectors between

the static-couple and multiplane methods are
given in this paper. Equations (23), (24), (27), and (28)
Using Equation (4) by setting WS=0 and neglecting HSC are used for conversion from multiplane format to
effect, the required couple weights were calculated as static-couple format and Equations (29)–(32) are
follows: used for conversion from static-couple format to
multiplane format.
or
3. Individual probe influence vectors due to static or
couple weights can be vital information. Static and
couple influence vectors as well as cross-effects can
be evaluated from them by using Equations (13)–(16)
Based on available weights and holes on the two
and multiplane influence vectors can be evaluated
balance planes as well as the above estimation, the
from them by using Equations (33)–(36).
following chosen weights
4. The above analytical findings have been confirmed
by experimental results.
would yield synchronous vibration vectors of about 0.2
mil pp and 0.7 mil pp at bearing Nos. 5 and 6, predicted 5. The analytical findings can be applied to real rotat-
from the original multiplane influence coefficient matrix. ing machinery balancing as shown in this article.
Effective balance weights can be best evaluated
After placing the above weights, synchronous vibrations
by using conversion equations of influence vectors
at bearing Nos. 5 and 6 were reduced to 0.2 mil pp and
between multiplane and static-couple formats.
0.4 mil pp, respectively, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Knowing influence vectors in both formats can also
help troubleshoot unbalance changes as well as
Conclusions running modes.
Based on both analytical and real case studies pre- * denotes a trademark of Bently Nevada, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Electric Company.
sented in this article, the following five conclusions are
stated regarding influence vectors using static-couple
and multiplane methods for two-plane balancing: Acknowledgment
1. For the static-couple method, cross-effects between The author is grateful to Robert C. Eisenmann, Sr. of
static weights and couple response as well as GE Energy for his support and comments on the current work.
between couple weights and static response can be
included so that a good combination of static and
couple weights can be applied to offset synchronous
vibration more effectively.

8 4 O R B I T Vol.29 No.1 2009

 APPLICATIONS

Nomenclature Greek

Superscripts

References
[1] Ehrich, F. F., 1999, Handbook of Rotordynamics,
Krieger, Malabar, FL.

[2] Foiles, W. C., Allaire, P. E., and Gunter, E. J., 1998,

“Review: Rotor Balancing,” Shock Vib., 5, pp. 325–336.

[3] Everett, L. J., 1987, “Two-Pane Balancing of a Rotor

System Without Phase Response Measurements,”
Trans. ASME, J. Vib., Acoust., Stress, Reliab. Des., 109,
pp. 162–167.

[4] Foiles, W. C., and Bently, D. E., 1988, “Balancing With

Phase Only (Single-Plane and Multiplane),” Trans.
ASME, J. Vib., Acoust., Stress, Reliab. Des., 110, pp.
151–157.

[5] Thearle, E. L., 1934, “Dynamic Balancing of Rotating

Machinery in the Field,” Trans. ASME, 56, pp. 745–753.

[6] Wowk, V., 1995, Machinery Vibration: Balancing,

McGraw-Hill, New York.

[7] Eisenmann, R. C., Sr., and Eisenmann, R. C., Jr., 1997,

Machinery Malfunction Diagnosis and Correction:
Vibration Analysis and Troubleshooting for the
Process Industries, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.

Vo l . 2 9 N o. 1 2 0 0 9 ORB I T 8 5