Page 1 of 10 2019-PCIC-0403
DROP IN MOTORS, WHAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER BEYOND THE BOLT
PATTERN
Copyright Material IEEE
Paper No. PCIC-(do not insert number)
Blake Parker Michael A. Melnick
Member IEEE Member IEEE
Integrated Power Services Air Products
1500 East Main Street 7201 Hamilton Blvd
La Porte, TX 77571 Allentown, PA 18195
baparker@ips.us MelnicMA@airproducts.com
Abstract – The push to improve efficiency and lower cost has
impacted electric motors. It is not uncommon to see a reduction
in mass for modern medium voltage machines, and the actual
footprint of the newer machines is smaller in most cases as well.
Many drop in motors (mechanically interchangeable) perform
very well. There are design constraints that may be overlooked
when ordering a functional drop in replacement machine.
Depending on the power, size, and speed of the motor, failure to
meet the minimum base stiffness requirements can cause
severe vibration issues. The combination of a transition base
with a machine of a different mass can cause resonance issues,
which can cost more than the motor to resolve. Changing from
a stiff to a flexible rotor can cause unexpected vibration issues
without an easy solution. The case study issues described in this
paper could be experienced by any end user regardless of the
original equipment manufacturer.
Index Terms — Flexible Shaft, Stiff Shaft, Transition Base,
Drop In Replacement, Resonance, Base Stiffness, Inertia,
Transient Natural Frequency, Torsional Analysis, Transient
Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
The replacement of operating medium voltage and high
voltage motors are typically performed during planned or
unplanned outages. For planned outages, motors can be
specified, quoted, have a design drawing review process and
factory performance tested in accordance with customer’s
standards and installation requirements. Depending on the
power size and speed of the motor, this process may take 42-52
weeks from specification to site delivery. Unplanned outages are
typically due to a motor failure, depending on the failure mode
and consequential damage to the motor, repair, rewind and or
rebuild of components may be required. In most cases, the
repair, rewind, rebuild of the original motor can be performed in
2-12 weeks.
Whether replacing due to an unplanned failure or planned
outage, the same level of diligence is required to assure the
machine will perform as required. The tendency in unplanned
situations is to shortcut or skip portions of the process. Failing to
utilize a proper design review process exposes companies to a
high risk of poor performance. In some cases, the equipment will
fail on startup or fail to meet acceptable operating results.
Requesting an identical machine from an original equipment
manufacturer does not guarantee an identical design. In many
cases design improvements and changes will have occurred
1
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
Neal Tara Javier Portos
Operations Machinery Eng. Member IEEE
Air Products Integrated Power Services
7201 Hamilton Blvd 500 East Main Street
Allentown, PA 18195 La Porte, TX 77571
TaraN@airproducts.com jportos@ips.us
since the original machine’s manufacture. Improvement in
processes, materials, efficiencies, and cost drive changes in
design and manufacturing. As an example, in the last century,
the desire to reduce material usage has resulted in a 14-fold
increase in the electric motor watts per kilogram ratio. On
average, in 1962, the ratio was 86 W/kg, and in 1995 it was 335
W/kg [1]. This practice continues, further increasing the W/Kg
differences between the newly manufactured replacement motor
in comparison to the operating/failed machine.
When an original equipment manufacturer receives a request
for an identical machine there may be circumstances they are
unaware of that may impact the machines performance. These
could be opposite drive end oil pumps, soft start or adjustable
speed drives, special base configurations and more. In order to
prevent poor running conditions, the electrical and mechanical
team behind the assets must ensure all pertinent information is
considered and reviewed by qualified decision makers.
This paper will discuss design considerations that should be
taken into account for any motor outside a NEMA standard T
Frame. While this paper cannot possibly cover every
conceivable parameter, it will provide suggestions as to the most
common issues encountered. This paper also goes into the case
history of a motor in which a stiff shaft machine was replaced with
a flexible shaft machine. Taking the proper considerations during
the design and procurement phase ensures the motor will
perform as expected for years to come.
II. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. The Nameplate
When ordering a replacement machine, the first place we start
is the nameplate. Clearly identifying the basic operating
parameters is essential in starting the replacement process.
Providing a picture of all the nameplates on the machine is the
best way to provide the information. This ensures as much
relevant available data possible is provided and eliminates the
inevitable request to verify information after the initial request for
quotation is submitted. It is easy to take for granted or overlook
details that may not seem important. For this reason, many
manufacturers will not provide a quote without pictures of the
nameplates.
Just as this information is the first thing you should provide to
the original equipment manufacturers, this is also the first
information to review on the prints provided in the proposal
package. Depending on the type of machine, there may be small
variations in design criteria such as rotor slip. If the old machine
 2019-PCIC-0403
ran at 3580 RPM under full load, and the new one runs at 3575
RPM under full load, verify that the change will not affect the
driven equipment and is acceptable to the owner. Locked rotor
current, design starting torque through full speed range (speed
torque), and full load current are other parameters that may
change in a new design. While these changes are typically
minimal they may require changes in protection settings. These
are just a few examples of changes that typically occur when
replacing a motor with a “drop in” replacement.
Is the machine a spare for multiple facilities? If so make sure
that the changes are acceptable for the other facilities. For
example, is the machine bi-directional with regards to rotation?
If not, the driven equipment at the other facility may not rotate in
the same direction. Changing to a directional design may render
the machine unsuitable for the other facility. Fundamental design
criteria such as Motor shaft centerline height, anchor bolt size &
location, motor shaft geometry & Keyway detail in coupling hub
fit area should be included in the applications review. Other basic
criteria to be given consideration should include the terminal box
location, motor lubrication methodology - force fed vs. constant
level oilers, type of cooling TEFC vs. TEWAC, condition
monitoring instrumentation compatibility as well as whether the
enclosure type is suitable for the multiple applications in
question, as an example Drip Proof enclosure versus Weather
Protected enclosure.
B. Rotor Design
When specifying a replacement motor, it is not uncommon to
overlook the importance of rotor design. While torque curves,
starting torque and materials cover many of the concerns, we
also need to understand if there are significant changes to the
rotor’s L/D Ratio (where L = bearing span length and D is the
nominal shaft diameter) and if the new rotor is flexible. A flexible
rotor is commonly defined as one that operates above its first
lateral critical speed. This is typically only of concern on higher
speed machines, 1800 RPM and above. Most never worry about
whether their existing machines have a flexible rotor. However,
when replacing a motor, it is critical to understand what you have
prior to purchasing new.
In some cases, a flexible shaft machine is acceptable, it
depends on the design of the system. A stiff shaft machine will
typically not be as sensitive to conditions such as coupling
runout, shaft misalignment, unbalance forces, structural and
torsional excitation forces; as well as influences of differential
thermal growth both from within and externally from the driven
equipment. With a flexible shaft machine, during seemingly
normal operation, it is possible to excite the lateral natural
frequency (lnf) of the rotor with external forces transmitted
through the coupling from the driven equipment. The natural
frequency can also be excited from residual unbalance forces
that can vary due to differential thermal growth under load. Most
motors in this class are not instrumented with proximity probes
and a keyphasor and therefore, the excitation of a lateral natural
frequency from external excitation forces, may not easily be
identified.
With the excitation of any natural frequency, whether a rotor’s
lateral, system structural, or torsional, what are otherwise normal
vibration levels can be multiplied considerably. Pending the
measurement point, it is not uncommon to see amplitudes
increased 10 times or more as measured by an external casing
velocity transducer.
2
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
Page 2 of 10
Another often overlooked aspect during motor replacement is
whether the replacement motor, with corresponding changes in
rotor stiffness and inertia, will ultimately result in an interference
between motor operating speed and the system torsional natural
frequency tnf. This concern is greater when the new motor of
equivalent power rating to a legacy motor has significantly lower
rotor mass affecting the inertia. As the spring / mass relationship
changes where the motor and driven equipment comprise the
mass and the main drive coupling is the spring, the reduction in
motor mass and inertia will cause a substantial upward shift in
the location of the torsional natural frequency. Should the new
tnf location become aligned with motor operating speed, the
interference can lead to high oscillating torque and a potential for
a failure of one or more components that are subjected to cyclical
stress that results from such an interference. The reality though
is that torsional natural frequencies tend to be narrow band and
unlike a synchronous motor for which there is a much higher
degree of concern with a tnf interference, an induction motor
generates only a fraction of pulsating torque during normal
operation. Therefore, the resulting level of stress for critical drive
train components may be low enough that longer term operation
can be sustained – despite operation that is at or near
interference with a torsional natural frequency.
While a system tnf location can be predicted using both the
torsional stiffness & inertia of the drive, driven components and
coupling, the exact location of a tnf can only be determined by
field testing whereby the main drive coupling is instrumented with
strain gauges. For systems with known torsional natural
frequencies that are below operating speed and especially for
synchronous motors, a transient response analysis should also
be considered during the field testing for tnf location. This is an
important consideration as peak torque through the tnf can be
many times greater that the continuous full load torque rating of
the drive coupling. Should a tnf interference be identified, this
problem can be corrected by shifting the tnf from operating speed
via coupling stiffness and inertia change and/or the installation of
a torsionally resilient coupling that is designed to serve as an
oscillating torque dampener.
Due to the extensive field testing as well as system downtime
requirements to fully instrument and test a machine; the process
of identifying an interference with a torsional resonance is not
easy and can also be quite expensive. In many cases the
correction, which may require a replacement coupling and
additional verification testing, can cost as much as the machine
itself.
If you are unsure whether the machine you are replacing has
a flexible shaft there are ways this can be determined. If possible
refer to initial prints, acceptance testing, or the original equipment
manufacturer to try and determine the machine design. If the
information is not available critical speed testing can be
performed. A Bode’ plot is a reliable way to determine critical
speed. A Bode’ plot is a record of amplitude and phase versus
speed – usually filtered. A trigger off the shaft is used to generate
the phase record [4]. The Bode plot indicates if and at what
frequency the bending moment occurs. The phase shift occurs
at the bending moment of the rotor or lateral natural frequency.
A 90° phase shift indicates the frequency at which the rotor is
resonant Fig. 1 and the phase angle shifts by a total of 180
degrees after the rotor passes through the lateral natural
frequency. It’s important to recognize that above the first lateral
critical speed, the high spot and heavy spot are no longer in
phase, but rather the high spot lags the heavy spot by 180
Page 3 of 10 2019-PCIC-0403
degrees. Therefore, low speed balancing which is common
industry practice as well as any field balancing attempts on a fully
assembled motor may have only minimal impact on rotor
amplitude and bending mode shape above the first lateral critical
speed.
Fig. 1 Bode’ Plot Enlarged
The point at which the machine above reaches peak amplitude
it jumps from .3 inches per second to almost 1 ips, and the phase
angle changes by 85°. With the increase of amplitude and phase
angle shift we can be confident the 1st lateral critical speed occurs
at or around 2929 cycles per minute / 48.8 Hz.
Which is the best rotor design, rigid or flexible? There are
specifications that call for rigid rotors where there is no specific
technical requirement for rigid, introducing life cost to the project.
The choice will depend on several requirements, including
application, speed range, initial cost, maintenance and
operational costs, and other design boundary conditions [2].
C. Machine Mass
As the frames of machines change, so does the mass of the
machine. This includes motor rotor mass and consequently,
motor inertia (WR2). This can be due to frame design, stator
design, rotor design, or a combination of all three. As more and
more machines are being assembled in a modular or skid type
configuration, the concerns associated with mass become
greater. The change in mass changes the natural frequency of
the system. Skid type units may be more sensitive to changes
of this nature.
Just as with the rotor design, setting a motor up to run without
adequate separation from the natural frequency will amplify
normally acceptable vibration to unacceptable levels. Impact
testing can be performed to determine the frequency at which
resonance occurs in a structure or piece of equipment.
Regardless of whether a machine has an adequate separation
margin from the rotor’s 1st lateral natural frequency, the motor
3
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
might still impart enough energy through its support base to
excite the natural frequency of the structure.
Fig. 2 Impact Testing Enlarged
In the image above Fig. 2, a peak occurs when measuring
the transfer function at 52.5 Hz, 11.8% from the operating
frequency of 59.66 Hz. API 541 states that the operating
frequency of the machine must differ by at least +/-15% from one,
two and, three times the running speed frequency, one- and two-
times line frequency, and not between 40% and 60% of running
speed. [3]
D. Starting Torque/Inertia Requirements
While many applications do not require special considerations,
failure to understand the starting requirements of the driven
equipment can lead to premature failure. When a motor is
exposed to heavy inertial loading on startup, rotors are exposed
to higher than normal induced current for extended times. As
rotors are not typically instrumented the rotors can be exposed
to higher than rated temperatures without tripping over
temperature sensors.
In the best-case situations motor life will be reduced and the
rotors will fail prematurely (less than design life). However, the
motor may fail upon initial startup. None of these outcomes are
acceptable. A proper design review will prevent this costly
mistake. When specifying a new motor, the load break
horsepower, starting torque curve and inertia of the driven
equipment should be provided in the specification, if possible.
III. CASE STUDY
A. Background
A drop in replacement motor was specified to replace an
existing 2 pole, 2000 HP machine. The motor is not an API
machine, but references are made to API as an independent
standard. The motor is driving a centrifugal main air compressor.
There is a lube oil pump mounted to the opposite drive end of the
motor, and the air exhausts to a vent duct from the top or the
 2019-PCIC-0403
machine. The original motor suffered a rotor failure. The original
machines had a rotor utilizing an aluminum cage. The decision
was made by the end user to replace the machine with a new
motor. The new motor was specified with a copper barred rotor,
matching foot print, and appropriate torque characteristics to
power the machine.
Removal and installation of this application is more difficult
than most. The overhead crane is not rated to lift the complete
motor. There is no access to the building without removing the
wall. Due to the construction of the building the motor has to be
lifted with a forklift. Removal and installation times are easily
double that of a standard install with good overhead clearance.
When taking that into consideration downtime expense is greatly
amplified as well as the resources to swap the machine.
There were no special requirements for this motor aside from
the speed torque curve provided by the compressor
manufacturer. The power requirements and mounting
configuration were carefully considered prior to the purchase of
the replacement motor. At first glance all the requirements
appeared to be met for the machine. A transition base was
required to provide identical dimensions for the new machine as
well as to correct the shaft centerline. This is not an uncommon
practice and an adapter base is used successfully in many
applications today. Figs. 2 & 3 show actual dimensions.
Fig. 3 Original Motor
Fig. 4 Replacement Motor
4
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
Page 4 of 10
B. Installation/Commissioning
The motor was tested at the factory and by the vendor
supplying the motor. The motor passed all factory acceptance
testing with a highest vibration reading of 0.08 ips overall on the
drive end vertical axis. The motor was deemed suitable for
installation. The motor was installed and aligned per the
compressor manufacturers recommendations including thermal
growth targets. Other modifications included conversion from
forced lubrication to self-contained, an opposite drive end
mounted oil pump, and the required piping modifications. The
motor was bumped for rotation, magnetic center verification, and
a final check was performed prior to restarting the process.
Immediately upon startup the bearing housing vibrations of the
machine were higher than acceptable (the machine is not
equipped with proximity probes). The drive end horizontal axis
of the machine had readings as high as 1 inches per second ips
overall with the dominant amplitude of .9 ips at 1X Fig.5. These
readings were 4 times greater than the end users limit of .25 ips
for motors mounted on steel structures. The other axis points
were high as well. In Fig.7, the highest reading is shown.
Fig. 5 Coupled DE Horizontal Vibration Readings
C. Findings
Due to the extreme difference in FAT vibration results and the
initial commissioning, the decision to perform an impact test was
made. With the motor in place, feet bolts torqued, coupled and
all accessories installed, the frame was found to have a natural
frequency at 3375 CPM. That frequency is only 6.25% below the
operating speed of the machine Fig 6. API 541 5th edition states:
Lateral natural frequencies which can lead to resonance
amplification of vibration amplitudes shall be removed from the
operating speed frequency and other significant exciting
frequencies by at least 15% [3]. At this time the vendor began
comparing the mass of the two machines.
Page 5 of 10 2019-PCIC-0403

Fig. 9 Excerpt from motor print

While steps can be taken to change the mass or stiffness of the

frame, making those same changes to the rotor is significantly
more difficult. Without a complete rotor design change there is
little that can be done to effectively change the critical speed of
the rotor. A reduction in bearing clearance will increase stiffness
and damping, resulting in higher critical speeds [1]. At the same
time a reduction in clearance can also lead to higher bearing
temperatures.

Fig. 6 Results of Impact Testing D. Corrections

A decision was made to increase the mass of the base by an

amount equal to or greater than the difference in the original and
new motor. Given the situation adding that amount mass to the
Motor Weights rotating component was not a viable option. The only viable
Stator 7500 option was to increase the mass of the base while ensuring the
minimum stiffness requirement was met. By increasing the
Rotor 3050 mass, the natural frequency of the base will go down. A large
End Shield & Brg. 650 piece of A36 steel plate 3” thick with 1” rails replaced the previous
base which was rectangular tubing. The base was replaced, and
Top Cover 550 the motor realigned to the thermal growth targets. With the motor
Total 11750 in place, feet bolts torqued, coupled and all accessories installed.
Fig. 7 Original Motor Mass The impact test was repeated. The impact test showed a
reduction in the frequency; indicating while the rotating mass
remained the same, the natural frequency of the stationary
component had improved. The new natural frequency was 2850
CPM, a separation of 20% from run speed Fig. 10. While the
vibration was reduced, it was still well above the end user spec
of .25 ips for a machine on a steel structure. The original
horizontal drive end value was 1 ips overall; the new reading was
.74 ips overall Fig. 11. The phase angles were not stable, as such
field balancing was unsuccessful.
Fig. 8 New Motor Mass

When comparing the mass of the new motor to that of the old
motor Figs. 7 & 8, the stator of the machine has considerably less
mass, 1,875 pounds less than the original design. There are two
things that affect the natural frequency of a system, stiffness and
mass (inertia). When the stiffness of a systems is increased, the
natural frequency of the system is increased as well. When the
mass (inertia) is increased, the natural frequency of the system
is driven down. While determining the mass is relatively easy,
determining the stiffness of the machine can be quite complex.
The rotor in the old machine weighed 3,050 pounds vs. the new
rotor weight of 1,345 pounds. This alone is not an indicator of
the suitability of the motor for the application. This does however
point to potential design differences that should be carefully
considered when determining the suitability of the machine. In
this instance, the lower mass of the rotor results in a significant
reduction in inertia.
There is also a note Fig. 9, requiring a minimum stiffness Fig. 10 Natural Frequency After Base Modifications
threshold for the base of the machine where the original design
had none. Prior to installation of the machine, the stiffness of the
base had not been evaluated. Between the change in mass and
unknown stiffness of the base, there were multiple variables that
had changed with unknown expected results.

5
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
 2019-PCIC-0403 Page 6 of 10

The amplification factor result is 14.645. API 541 states, “A high

amplification factor (AF>10) indicates that rotor vibration during
operation near a critical speed could be considerable and that
critical clearance components may rub stationary elements
during periods of high vibration”[3]. The motor was removed and
sent back to the shop for further testing. The original motor was
inspected, cleaned, and reinstalled for service until a disposition
could be made for the replacement machine.

Fig. 11 Horizontal Drive End Post Base Modifications

E. Next Steps

When taking a step back to determine what had not been

considered the first time the system was evaluated, each
component was evaluated with a fine-tooth comb. The coupling
is a shim pack design with a spool piece in the middle 34.75”
long. The spool piece maximum runout of .017” is in the center
of the spool piece. While this is higher than acceptable for a 2-
pole machine, it did run acceptably on the previously installed
machine. Knowing the spool piece ran acceptably on the other
machine, the expectation is for the new machine to run well given
the same parameters.
Taking another look at the two motors, the rotor design had not
been taken into consideration prior to ordering the machine. No
engineering review had been performed, only a review of the bolt
pattern and starting torque. When examining the performance
characteristics of the two machines we determined the old Fig. 12 Bode’
machine is a stiff shaft design, and the new machine has a
flexible rotor. Additional testing was performed to determine the F. Rotor Evaluation
critical speed of the rotor. As this motor was not ordered to API
specifications, the only vibration test performed during the FAT When the motor was sent back to the shop, an incoming run
was for overall and 1X acceptance levels. There was no test was performed. The amplitudes were reduced as compared
requirement or request for the critical speed of the motor when to those in the field, .205 ips, but higher than when initially
purchased new. shipped from the vendor Fig. 13. A full teardown and inspection
The Bode’ plot in Fig. 12 shows us the first critical is at 2929 of the motor was performed to ensure no damage had occurred
RPM. The amplitude of the coastdown test shows an increase due to the high levels of vibration experienced. There were no
in vibration of 10X. There see a drastic increase in amplitude mechanical issues discovered with the motor. The motor did not
matched with a phase shift confirming this as a critical speed Fig. originally have proximity probes. Proximity probes were added
14. The amplification factor was then determined, which is: to assist in troubleshooting.
𝑁𝑐1
𝑁2 ― 𝑁1 =𝐴 (1)

Where

Nc1 Rotor first resonant frequency

N2 Final (greater) speed at .707 x peak

amplitude
N1 Final (lesser) speed at .707 x peak
amplitude.
AF Amplification Factor
Fig. 13 Initial Readings Upon Return to the Shop

6
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
Page 7 of 10 2019-PCIC-0403

Based on prior testing the rotor has a flexible shaft. Though

phase shift was occurring in the field, an attempt at field
balancing had been made. For this reason, the best approach
for re-balancing is at speed rather than utilizing a reduced speed
balance stand. All the balance weights were removed, and the
rotor was balanced at speed on the test stand utilizing proximity
probes. The baffles were left out to allow the balance weights to
be placed on the rotor body rather than the fans. Once the rotor
had been balanced on the test stand, the baffles were reinstalled
for final testing. The result was an acceptable reading of .074 ips
overall at the highest axis Fig. 14. The proximity probe readings
were below a highest of .7 mils and acceptable as well Fig. 15.
The amplitude of the vibration when passing through the first
critical was reduced from 1 ips to .3 ips. The machine was now
performing acceptably when run solo.

Fig. 16 Motor Load Test Setup

Immediately upon startup the vibration levels were higher than

Fig. 14 Post Balance Case Reading
acceptable. Vibration went from .074 ips to .3 ips overall and the
proximity probe readings climbed above 1.5 mils. Looking at the
data Fig. 17 there was some 2X confirmed in the waveform but,
it was primarily 1X vibration as seen before. The alignment was
verified as was coupling runout.

Fig. 15 Post Balance Proximity Probe Readings

G. Load Testing

Given the drastic change in performance between the machine

coupled and uncoupled in the field, a decision was made to load
test the machine. The load test was performed utilizing a water
brake dynamometer to generate the full load based on the
nameplate of the motor. The motor was coupled to the
dynamometer with a shim pack style coupling and laser aligned
to the dynamometer manufacturers recommended specifications
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17 Load Test Vibration Data
The runout of the individual components of the coupling were
found to be in good condition. The shaft runout of the dyno and
the motor were both less than .001”. However, when coupled the
shaft to the dyno runout would increase to .008” on the motor
shaft. The motor shaft was very easily influenced by outside
forces. Pressing down on the motor shaft itself uncoupled would
easily deflect the motor shaft .003”. The runout on the face of
the shim pack uncoupled was .012”. When coupled to the motor
shaft, it was pulling the motor shaft to .008” runout. It is unusual
for a shaft to deflect that much due to influence from the shim
pack.
The shims in the shim pack were replaced bringing the runout
to .003” on the face of the uncoupled shim pack. When replacing
we ensured the coupling did not get bumped or experience any
radial loading to cause shim pack deflection. When coupled up
the motor shaft was running out .0015”, much lower. Another
load test was performed at this point. While the 2X went down

7
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
 2019-PCIC-0403
and overall vibration was reduced, we were still above .25 ips on
the drive end. The coupling itself was trim balanced at this point
bringing vibration down to acceptable levels.
A full load test was performed until the stator temps were
stable, less than 1°F change over a 10-minute period. The test
lasted about 3 hours until the bearings and stator temperatures
stabilized. The vibration was monitored continuously for the
length of the test to ensure stability as well. The motor
temperatures stabilized, and temperatures ran well for the full
length of the test run. Case readings did not exceed .12 ips
during the run and proximity probe readings were acceptable at
1.011 mils or less for the length of the run Figs. 18 and Fig. 19.
Fig. 18 Highest Proximity Probe Reading at the end of the run.
Fig. 19 Highest Case Reading at the end of the run
H. Disposition
Once it had been determined exactly what it was going to take
to make this motor run well in the shop, the field installation had
to be examined for the same criteria. This motor is utilized at two
different facilities. That means whatever is done at one site, will
have to be done at the other as well. Below is what was
determined will have to be done at the site in order for the motor
to run well.
1. The base at the sister location must be replaced with one
similar to the one installed at the initial location. Though the
vibration was not entirely eliminated it was reduced enough to be
of concern for the sister site. Without the base modification, the
precision coupling, and balancing would not be enough to make
the motor vibration acceptable.
8
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
Page 8 of 10
2. The motor must be field balanced uncoupled onsite once it is
installed.
3. The coupling must be replaced with one that has a runout of
less than .003” at the highest point and is precision balanced.
4. After the coupling is installed and alignment is performed,
ensure the shim packs are not affecting the runout of the motor
shaft.
5. The coupling will have to be field balanced to achieve
acceptable vibration for the machine.
Given the above requirements for this machine to perform, the
end user began looking at the financial implications of utilizing
this machine. An additional base would need to be modified, two
precision coupling spool pieces would need to be obtained, and
the field installation would be much more difficult than a typical
motor swap out. When evaluating all those factors across the
expected life of the machine, the end user was on the fence with
regards to making the recommendation of the use of this
machine as a viable spare. One final question arose, torsional
resonance. Given the other issues experienced with this
machine, the end user and vendor had concerns that torsional
resonance is a possibility. Looking at the way the machine
performed on the dyno, even at its worst the vibration was half
what was seen in the field. This led the end user and vendor to
believe cost could be above and beyond those listed above.
Weighing all the factors together neither party could justify the
cost of re-installing the machine to perform a torsional analysis.
In the event the machine did not run well, the vendor would be
swapping right back to the legacy machine at a cost to the vendor
and end user.
Due to the extensive and extraordinary steps required for this
machine to operate reliably and the high degree of susceptibility
to vibration problems that was proven to result from external
forces and system resonance, the decision was made to reject
the machine for this application. The cost of performing the
modifications required at multiple locations combined with the
additional time required for installation led to the decision to
replace the machine with one more appropriately suited for the
application. The expenses associated with the failed attempts to
make the motor run in the field, shop testing, and evaluations
were higher than the cost of the initial purchase price of the
machine.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
When ordering a new motor, it is very easy to take for granted
that the machine will perform as expected. Many times, end
users and vendors believe that nameplate information alone is
enough to provide end users with an acceptable machine.
Failure to perform an engineering review of the existing motor
and replacement option can lead to costly downtime, rework, and
failure to meet end user’s expectations. The additional time
required on the front end for the engineering review is a fraction
of manufacturing time when you consider the lead time of
medium voltage motors is often greater than 36 weeks.
Using an industry specification that includes acceptance
criteria that meet the operating criteria of the plant can also help
in voiding issues such as these. Standards such as API 541
Page 9 of 10 2019-PCIC-0403

provide guidance when ordering the motor for the customer and
vendor to help mitigate risks to all parties involved.
In the event you do encounter similar issues to the event
described above, gathering all critical data and including a
torsional analysis could mitigate the steps taken to reach a
conclusion. A torsional analysis would have more clearly
illustrated the challenges at the start of this project.
When ordering a new motor take the time to research the
requirements of the driven machine, the operating parameters of
the existing machine, and what variables should be taken into
consideration. If you or your company do not have the expertise
to perform these evaluations, find a trusted vendor to assist you
in performing a full evaluation prior to issuing the purchase order.
It is critical that procurement and engineering work together to
deliver the desired performance of the plant’s equipment.
Subcommittee. He is a cat III vibration analyst through the
Vibration Institute.
Neal Tara began his career in the Industrial Gases Industry at
Union Carbide Linde Division in 1988 in an Engineering Support
role within the Mechanical Equipment Engineering Organization
located in Tonawanda, New York. He graduated from State
University of New York in 1991 with a Bachelor’s Science
degree. In 1992, he Joined Air Products as a Machinery
Application Engineer in Allentown, Pennsylvania and has since
progressed through multiple positions within the Machinery
Engineering Community. He is currently a Lead Machinery
Engineer in the Operations Machinery Engineering Organization
supporting various facilities throughout North America in both
machinery reliability & productivity initiatives.

V. REFERENCES Javier Portos graduated from U.A.N.L., Mexico with a BSEE

[1] G.C Stone, S. Sasic, D.Dunn, I. Culbert “Recent Problems
Experienced with Motor and Generator Windings”, Record
of Conference Papers- Industrial Applications Society 56th
Annual Petroleum and Chemical Conference, Anaheim,
CA, Sept 2009.
[2] R.R. Neto, D.L. Bogh, M.Flammia “Some Experiences on
Rigid and Flexible Rotors in Induction Mootrs Driving
Critical Equipment in Petroleum and Chemical Plants”,
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Volume 44,
Issue 3, May-June 2008, Pgs 923-931.
[3] API Standard 541 5th Edition, Form-wound Squirrel Cage
Induction Motors – 375 kW (500 Horsepower) and Larger,
Washington, DC 2000
[4] Ronald L. Eshleman, MACHINERY VIBRATION
ANALYSIS: Diagnostics, Condition Evaluation, and
Correction, Clarendon Hills, NY: Vibration Institute, 2002
degree in 1990. He joined Unimega-Hitach Monterey Plant in
1990 as an Electrical Design Engineer. He moved in 1996 to GE
Canada as an Electrical Design Engineer with the large motor
technology group. In 1998 he pursued a career with Louis Allis
Company in Milwaukee as a Design Engineer of large and
special induction motors. He joined Teco-Westinghouse Motor
Co. in late 1998 and held various engineering level positions
including senior and chief electrical design engineer for large
induction and synchronous motors. In 2010 he joined NOV as a
lead design engineer for motors and generators used in the Oil
and Gas drilling industry. In 2012 he accepted the VP of
engineering (southern region) position with Integrated Power
Services (IPS). He has authored and presented five PCIC
papers. Javier has been a member of working groups for IEEE
and API standards.

VI. VITAE

Michael A. Melnick received ASEET degree from

Pennsylvania State University, and BSEE degree from Lafayette
College, Easton, PA. He is currently the Manager-Americas,
Electrical Engineering in the Operations Organization at Air
Products, Allentown, PA. Over the past 30 years he has held
various positions in Electrical Design and Electrical Engineering
in the New Plant Design Engineering and Operations
Organizations at Air Products. Previous to his work at Air
Products, Mr. Melnick worked as an electrical design/drafter at
Crowder Engineering. He is a member of IEEE Industry
Applications Society and active member in IEEE-PCIC Safety
Subcommittee and Refining Subcommittee. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in California and Pennsylvania.

Blake Parker received his AAS from Texas State Technical

College, BS in Industrial Engineering from Southern Illinois
University, and MBA from LeTourneau University in Longview,
TX. He is currently the Director of Field Services for Integrated
Power Services, La Porte, TX. He started his rotating equipment
career as a mechanic for Eastman Chemical in Longview, TX
and moved on to Integrated Power Services after receiving his
bachelors degree. He has also held management positions with
Colfax Fluid Handling Reliability Services. He is a member of
IEEE Industry Applications Society, IEEE 2455 and Refining

9
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE
 2019-PCIC-0403 Page 10 of 10

10
978-1-7281-2305-9/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE