72 ORBI T Vol . 29 No.

1 2009
APPLICATIONS
John J. Yu, Ph.D. Senior Engineer, Machinery Diagnostics Bently Nevada Asset Condition Monitoring GE Energy john.yu@ge.com
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
of high vibration problems in rotating
machines. High synchronous forces
and vibration amplitudes due to mass
unbalance produce excessive stresses
on the rotor and also affect bearings and casing,
thus reducing the life span of the machine. The
source of unbalance may be imperfect manu-
facturing processes including assembly variation
and material nonhomogeneity. Though rotors
are typically balanced by manufacturers before
they are installed for service, unbalance may still
occur afterward for various reasons. These include
deposits or erosion on (and shifting of) rotating
parts, as well as thermal effects. Therefore, in
many cases, field balancing is required to reduce
synchronous vibration levels. Topics on balancing
have been of great interest to rotor dynamic
researchers and engineers [1,2]. Typically a turbine,
compressor, or generator section is supported
by two bearings. This often requires two-plane
balancing for most cases where cross-effects
among different sections through couplings
are trivial. There are a few papers discussing
two-plane balancing with amplitude [3] or phase
[4] only. These approaches would often require
more runs in the field and may increase both the
time and the cost for users of rotating machinery.
The influence coefficient method is typically used
for field trim balancing. There are basically two
approaches to apply this method. The first one is to
treat it as a multiplane balance problem involving
RELATIONSHIP
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 73
APPLICATIONS
a 2X2 matrix of complex influence coefficients, as
Thearle [5] first presented in 1934. In this approach,
two direct influence coefficients along with two
cross-effect influence coefficients are generated
so that correction weights at two balance planes
can be determined. The second one is to treat
it as two single-plane balance problems using
static and couple components, respectively. The
latter approach has been used extensively in the
field [6,7]. Having valid influence coefficient data
makes balancing much easier. Influence coefficient
data can be employed to save trial runs for many
machines of the same design or for future balanc-
ing on the same machine. For two-plane balancing
with influence coefficients, either static-couple or
multiplane approaches can be used. However, no
relationship of influence coefficients was given
between these two approaches. It was also some-
times believed that static-couple balance could
not reduce both static and couple vibration vectors
successfully because static (couple) weights
affect couple (static) response. In this paper, the
multiplane approach with a 2X2 influence coef-
ficient matrix is first presented, followed by the
static-couple approach. In the latter approach,
cross-effects between the static (couple) weights
and the couple (static) component are introduced.
Then, an analytical relationship of influence coef-
ficients between these two approaches is derived
for two-plane balancing. Real examples are given
to verify the developed analytical conversion
formulas as well as to show their application.
74 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
Multiplane Method
As shown in Figure 1, synchronous 1X vibration vectors
are expressed as A
1
and A
2
measured by probes 1 and 2,
respectively.
Their orientations a
1
and a
2
are defined by phase
lagging relative to their probe orientation (Figure 1
shows the instant when the Keyphasor* pulse occurs).
Balance weights at weight planes 1 and 2 are expressed
as W1 and W2 with their orientations b
1
and b
2
refer-
enced to the probe orientation, respectively. Assuming
that the system is linear, changes in 1X vibration vectors
due to weight placement can be given by

where h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
form the 2x2 influence coeffi-
cient matrix. Superscripts (0) and (1) represent status
without and with weights W
1
and W
2
, respectively.
Typically, the four influence coefficients, through two
trial runs, can be computed as follows:
Figure 1. Diagram of vibration and weight vectors when the Keyphasor pulse occurs.
(1)
(2)
where superscript (0) represents status without weights
and superscripts (1) and (2) denote status with the first
and second sets of weights. Note that the two sets of
weights must be chosen in a way that the weight matrix
is not singular.
(3)
Static-Couple Method
In the static-couple approach, as shown in Figure 2,
vibration vectors at both ends of the shaft are
expressed as the combination of static and couple
components as follows:
where S and C are defined as static and couple
components, respectively.
The static influence coefficient is computed based on
vectorial changes in S due to the static weights W
S

(which can be sometimes placed as one weight in the
middle balance plane), as shown in Figure 2. The couple
influence coefficient is calculated based on vectorial
changes in C due to the couple weights W
C
(180 deg
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.
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 75
APPLICATIONS
This article introduces the following static-couple
balance model to include these cross-effects:

where superscripts (0)and (1) represent status without
and with static weight(s) W
S
and/or couple weights W
C
.
Equation (4) also applies to the case where the static
weight W
S
is placed in the middle plane instead of two
end planes. The above four influence coefficients can be
computed by placing static/couple weights.
Having vibration data before and after static weight(s)
placement W
S
(without couple weights) yields
(4)
and
(5)
(6)
and
(7)
(8)
where C
C
is the couple vibration component with
couple weight(s)couple vibration component without
couple weights and S
C
is the static vibration compo-
nent with weight(s)static vibration component without
couple weights.
Equations (5) and (7) have been widely used to compute
the effect of static weight(s) to the static component and
the effect of couple weights to the couple component,
respectively. However, the cross-effect of static
weight(s) to the couple component or couple weights
to the static component has not been introduced so
far and has often been assumed to be zero. In a real
where S
S
is the static vibration component with static
weight(s)static vibration component without static
weight(s) and C
S
is the couple vibration component
with static weight(s)couple vibration component
without static weight(s).
Similarly, having vibration data before and after couple
weight placement W
C
(without static weights) yields
However, cross-effects of static weights to the couple
component or couple weights to the static component
have often been neglected when performing balancing.
A nonsymmetric rotor with respect to its two ends, or
strongly influenced by its adjacent section via coupling,
might have significant cross-effects.
Figure 2. Diagram of static/couple vibration and weight vectors when the Keyphasor pulse occurs.
76 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Using Equations (13)(16), individual probe influence
vectors near plane 1 or 2 due to static or couple weights
can also be expressed in terms of static or couple influ-
ence vectors as follows:
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
Combining Equations (6), (9), and (10) yields (note that
C
S
=(A
1,S
A
2,S
)/2)
Combining Equations (7), (11), and (12) yields (note that
C
C
=(A
1,C
A
2,C
)/2)
Combining Equations (8), (11), and (12) yields (note that
S
C
=(A
1,C
+A
2,C
)/2)
Note that all the above equations apply to cases where
static weights are placed either at the middle balance
weight plane only or at two end balance weight planes
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).
rotor where asymmetry exists due to rotor structure or
coupling effects, the cross-effect could be significant.
Equations (6) and (8) include these cross-effects. After
both static and couple balancing without considering
the cross-effects, residual unbalance response could
still be high. However, if these four influence coefficients
are obtained, both the static and couple vibration
components can be effectively reduced by applying
appropriate static and couple weights. Thus synchro-
nous vibration levels at plane 1 (A
1
=S +C) and plane 2
(A
2
=S C) will be reduced accordingly.
Equation (4) shows that vibration can be effectively
reduced using the static-couple approach by including
cross-effects. There appears no need to reduce the
static (or the couple) component perfectly with the static
(or the couple) weights before making a trial run with
the couple (or the static) weights, if both the static and
couple weights are going to be tried. After trial runs with
static and couple weights, respectively, all direct and
cross-effects can be obtained, as shown in Equation 4.
where
A
1,C
= A
1
with couple weights A
1
without couple
weights
A
2,C
= A
2
with couple weights A
2
without couple
weights
Combining Equations (5), (9), and (10) yields (note that
S
S
=A
1,S
+A
2,S
/2)
When the static or the couple component appears to
be larger, only static weight(s) or couple weights are
sometimes used. An optimized static or couple weight
solution can be obtained to include the cross-effect.
Sometimes one needs to know individual probe influ-
ence due to static or couple weights. The static weight
influence to probes near planes 1 and 2 can be given by
where
A
1,S
= A
1
with static weight(s) A
1
without static
weight(s)
A
2,S
= A
2
with static weight(s) A
2
without static
weight(s)
Similarly, the couple weight influence to probes near
planes 1 and 2 can be given by
and
(9)
(10)
and
(11)
(12)
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 77
APPLICATIONS
Relationship of Influence Coefficients
Between the Two Methods
When performing balancing in the field, sometimes the
number of weights or the amount of weights (heavy
metal weights may not be allowed due to high tempera-
ture on some rotors such as high pressure (HP) section)
is limited at balance planes. In this case, even if a 2X2
influence coefficient matrix is available that may lead
to placement of a large amount of weights at two end
planes, one would prefer to use less amounts of static
or couple weights only to reduce vibration to acceptable
levels. Using either static or couple weights would
depend on which component is dominant and which
weight placement is more efficient (having sensitivity of
static and couple influence vectors would help to deter-
mine). Having influence vectors for static and couple
weights with the same phase lag reference for weights
and vibration vectors (suggested to use for balancing,
preferably aligned to the probe orientation), one would
be able to see how the rotor is running before, after,
or close to the translational, pivotal, or other bending
modes based on phase lag angle of static and couple
influence vectors. The above-mentioned questions can
be answered by conversion of influence vectors from
the multiplane method to the static-couple method.
On the other hand, one would also need to know
influence vectors expressed in terms of the multiplane
method from known static and couple influence vectors
in some cases. Sometimes only one end balance plane
can be used due to unavailable empty holes or slot
section for weights, or difficult access on the other
end plane. In thermal bow/rub situations, calculating
additional unbalance (caused by thermal bow) using
vibration excursion vectors compensated by the normal
running condition vectors based on the multiplane
influence model would help to determine the thermal
bow/rub location (close to balance plane 1 or 2). Using
the 2X2 multiplane method would also directly lead
to weight placement at planes 1 and 2. Those would
require conversion of influence vectors from the static-
couple method to the multiplane method.
Applying arbitrary static weights W
S
only at planes 1
and 2, Equation (1) after replacing W
1
and W
2
each with
W
S
can be reformulated to
(21a)
(21b)
Applying the same static weights W
S
only at planes
1 and 2, Equation (4) after setting W
C
=0 can be
reformulated to
(22a)
(22b)
Addition of Equations (21a) and (21b) followed by
subtraction of Equation (22) with application of Equation
(3) yields
(23)
Subtraction of Equation (21) from Equation (21) followed
by subtraction of Equation (22) with application of
Equation (3) yields
(24)
Similarly, applying arbitrary couple weights W
C
only at
planes 1 and 2, Equation (1) after replacing W
1
with W
C

and W
2
with W
C
can be reformulated to
(25a)
(25b)
Applying the same static weights W
C
at planes 1 and 2,
Equation (4) after setting W
S
=0 can be reformulated to
(26a)
(26b)
Addition of Equations (25a) and (25b) followed by
subtraction of Equations (26a) with application of
Equation (3) yields
(27)
78 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
Subtraction of Equation (25b) from Equation (25a)
followed by subtraction of Equation (26b) with
application of Equation (3) yields
(28)
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)
(direct couple influence vector). Combining Equations
(23), (24), (27), and (28), conversion of influence vectors
from the static-couple method to the multiplane method
can also be given by
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
Combining Equations (13)(16) and (29)(32) yields
influence vectors with the multiplane method expressed
by individual probe influence vectors due to static and
couple weights as follows:
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
Combining Equations (33)(36), individual probe
influence vectors due to static or couple weights can
also be expressed in terms of influence vectors with
the multiplane method as follows:
Note that all the above equations in this section apply
to cases where static weights are placed at two end
balance weight planes. In case the static weight is
defined as placement at the middle balance plane,
Equations (27), (28), (39), and (40) are still valid.
Figure 3. Rotor kit for balance calculations.
Example 1 Rotor Kit Verification
The first real example presented here is mainly to verify
the above-developed equations of influence coefficient
conversion between multiplane and static-couple
methods. In this example, a Bently Nevada* RK-4 rotor
kit was used, as shown in Figure 3. A shaft with the
diameter and length of 0.01 m and 0.56 m, respectively,
was supported by two brass bushing bearings and
driven by a 75 W motor. Three 0.8 kg disks were
attached to the shaft with one close to bearing No. 1
and two close to bearing No. 2, thus having asymmetri-
cal mass distribution with respect to the two bearings.
The rotor was also supported by a midspan spring to
prevent excessive bow in the middle of the shaft. The
data acquisition and processing system consisted of
two pairs of X-Y displacement proximity probes, one
speed probe, and one Keyphasor* probe for speed and
phase measurement. Two balance weight planes 1 and
2 are located adjacent to bearing Nos. 1 and 2 as well
as their corresponding proximity probes. The shaft was
rotated in the counterclockwise direction when viewed
from the motor to bearing #2.
In this example, the running speed for balance was set
at 4800 rpm for demonstration. Since higher amplitudes
occurred in the horizontal direction at the running speed,
influence coefficient calculations were carried out in
terms of vibration readings measured by the two hori-
zontal probes located 90 deg right of top, as shown in
Figure 3. From an initial run without any balance weight
placement, synchronous vibration vectors at bearing
Nos. 1 and 2 in the horizontal direction were as follows:
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 79
APPLICATIONS
Figure 4. Polar plots and vibration vectors at approximately 4800 rpm for initial run, and rst and second trial
runs with weight placements.
With the following two 0.4 g weights placed at planes 1
and 2 (see Figure 4):
the corresponding vibration vectors became
Placing the following two 0.8 g weights at planes 1 and 2
(see Figure 4) after removing the above two 0.4 g weights
corresponded to the following vibration vectors:
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
influence coefficient matrix for the multiplane method
is computed as
Assuming that synchronous vibration vectors are lin-
early proportional to applied balance weights, arbitrary
two weight placement sets (as long as its weight matrix
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
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.
80 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
and the second trial run with static weights

can be computed, respectively, as follows:
Note that
and
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 h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
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.
It is shown from this real example that influence vectors
for the static-couple method can be calculated from
known influence coefficients h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
in a
2X2 matrix for the multiplane method, without having to
place trial static or couple weights. Since Eqs. (29)(32)
are equivalent to Equations (23), (24), (27), and (28), and
Equations (33)(36) are equivalent to Equations (37)(40),
Equations (29)(36) also hold true in this example.
Therefore, influence coefficients h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22

can also be obtained from influence vectors for the
static-couple method without having to place two sets
of trial weights.
In this example, it is found that static weights affect the
couple vibration vector (H
CS
is about 2.8 mils pp/g < 24
deg) and that couple weights affect the static vibration
vectors H
SC
is about 4.0 mils pp/g < 39 deg). These
cross-effects are even higher than the direct static
influence vector H
SS
about 1.1 mils pp/ g < 161 deg).
The high influence vector H
CC
about 16.6 mils pp/g < 44
deg) indicates a very sensitive couple weight effect. The
phase readings in H
SS
and H
CC
indicate that the rotor kit
runs after the first bending resonance speed and before
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
balance weights to offset the initial vibration at two
planes can be determined. The former approach yields
the following balance weights:
Thus, the above four values within the matrix are the
influence coefficients for the multiplane method at
this running speed. It is noted that the above two sets
of weight placement were also just for couple and
static weights, respectively. Therefore, the influence
coefficients for the static-couple method can be directly
computed. Using Equation (3), static and couple vibra-
tion vectors for the initial run without weight placement,
the first trial run with couple weights
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 81
APPLICATIONS
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
less than 1 mil after placing the above weights.
Table 1. Verication of inuence coefcient conversion between multiplane and static-couple
methods on a real example.
Figure 5. Synchronous orbits before and after
balance at bearing Nos. 1 and 2.
82 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
Figure 6. Polar plots and vibration vectors at
3600 rpm before and after balance.
Figure 7. Synchronous orbits at 3600 rpm before
and after balance.
Table 2. Calculated inuence vectors in static and
couple methods from the known inuence vectors
in the multiplane method, without placing static
or couple trial weights.
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
was installed at 45 deg left and right at bearing No. 5
while another pair of X-Y probes was installed at 60 deg
left and 30 deg right at bearing No. 6.
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 83
APPLICATIONS
Synchronous vibration amplitudes were higher on
Y-probes than on X-probes at the two bearings on
the generator. Balance calculations were therefore
conducted on Y-probes only. In order to use the
same nomenclature and subscripts for the equations
developed earlier, probes and weight plane at bearing
No. 5 are denoted as 1 while those at bearing No. 6 are
denoted as 2. As shown in Figure 6, Y-probe readings at
bearing Nos. 5 and 6 were
The previous influence coefficients used for the
multiplane method were given by
where h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
were applied to Equation (1)
in which synchronous vibration vectors were defined as
original ones from the two Y-probes 1 was referenced
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
two weight planes would not affect the validity of all
the equations developed in the paper. Weight planes
at bearing Nos. 5 and 6 had 44 and 36 holes for weight
placement, respectively. Their weight sizes were also
different between two planes.
Using Eq. (1), the required balance weights at two planes
appeared to be
These large amounts of weight at two planes were
unable to be placed into empty holes or achieved by
adjustment of existing weights. An alternative needed
to be found. The study of influence data was then
performed. Influence coefficients for static and couple
weights were calculated based on known h
11
, h
12
, h
21
,
and h
22
values without placing static or couple trial
weights. Note that the Y-probe at bearing No. 6 was
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 h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
needed to be applicable to this
change. Although the above-mentioned synchronous
vector at bearing No. 6 could be determined by using
vectors from both X and Y probes, h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22

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
and the influence matrix with both vibration and weight
vectors referenced to 45 deg left became
Table 2 shows calculated influence vectors for static
and couple weights from known influence vectors
h
11
, h
12
, h
21
, and h
22
used for the multiplane method,
without having to place static or couple trial weights.
The direct couple influence vector H
CC
was the most
sensitive one (0.0111 mil pp/g 131 deg), indicating that
appropriate couple weights would effectively reduce the
current synchronous vibration level, especially to bear-
ing No. 5 (h
1,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:
84 ORBI T Vol . 29 No. 1 2009
APPLICATIONS
Using Equation (4) by setting W
S
=0 and neglecting H
SC

effect, the required couple weights were calculated as
follows:
or
Based on available weights and holes on the two
balance planes as well as the above estimation, the
following chosen weights
would yield synchronous vibration vectors of about 0.2
mil pp and 0.7 mil pp at bearing Nos. 5 and 6, predicted
from the original multiplane influence coefficient matrix.
After placing the above weights, synchronous vibrations
at bearing Nos. 5 and 6 were reduced to 0.2 mil pp and
0.4 mil pp, respectively, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Conclusions
Based on both analytical and real case studies pre-
sented in this article, the following five conclusions are
stated regarding influence vectors using static-couple
and multiplane methods for two-plane balancing:
1. For the static-couple method, cross-effects between
static weights and couple response as well as
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.
2. Conversion equations of influence vectors between
the static-couple and multiplane methods are
given in this paper. Equations (23), (24), (27), and (28)
are used for conversion from multiplane format to
static-couple format and Equations (29)(32) are
used for conversion from static-couple format to
multiplane format.
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)
and multiplane influence vectors can be evaluated
from them by using Equations (33)(36).
4. The above analytical findings have been confirmed
by experimental results.
5. The analytical findings can be applied to real rotat-
ing machinery balancing as shown in this article.
Effective balance weights can be best evaluated
by using conversion equations of influence vectors
between multiplane and static-couple formats.
Knowing influence vectors in both formats can also
help troubleshoot unbalance changes as well as
running modes.
* denotes a trademark of Bently Nevada, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Electric Company.
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Robert C. Eisenmann, Sr. of
GE Energy for his support and comments on the current work.
Vol . 29 No. 1 2009 ORBI T 85
APPLICATIONS
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. 325336.
[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. 162167.
[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.
151157.
[5] Thearle, E. L., 1934, Dynamic Balancing of Rotating
Machinery in the Field, Trans. ASME, 56, pp. 745753.
[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.
Nomenclature