Good morning, all.
This may be a dumb question, but I'm still working on my first cup of java here. I have a US customer with engineers residing in Europe who are used to discussing vibration in mm/sec. My questions are:
1. Is there a way to toggle these units in RBMware?
2. Failing that, can I just take the overall vibration reading in inches/second and simply convert the inches portion to mm and be done with it?
Thanks in advance,
Providing your IPS portion isn't IPS^2 or IPS E2 and wanting to convert to soley mm from one of those EU's, else John's straight forward answer is basically correct.
I would further qualify the OA baseband as RBMware isn't quite according to Hoyle and maybe no one else's computation either. If they are used to mm over the specific given baseband frequency, then they will probably be un-nerved with CSI's level.
Be aware of the difference between 0-pk and RMS values.
So it is sounding like if my reading is 1.0 IPS-PK, I can convert it to 25.4 mm/sec (PK), though I should add in qualifiers mentioning that the original overall came from CSI's RBMware to cover my six on Sam's post.
Here's a follow-up: Would it make a difference in the conversion if I was gathering analog (unfiltered) overalls or is that just one more thing I should stipulate?
You can probably find a switch in Dbase/Globals or in RBMWizard.
I'll check later when I can get to RBMWare.
To convert between common vibration units, my VibCon program works well. Enter a frequency and the known amplitude and all the common units will be displayed, including dB levels.
You can get this free program from CTC at https://www.ctconline.com/index2.asp?currentnode=903&level2id=557
No installaltion is required.
Just to reinforce Steve's comment.
Typically in the US we measure velocity in ips pk/0.
Typically European and ISO measure velocity in mm/sec rms.
1 ips pk/0 = 25.4/sqrt(2) mm/sec rms
1 ips pk/0 ~ 18 mm/sec rms
IN addition to Jon's link, you can also download this free calculator....
Again, be CAREFUL of units !!! rms, 0-p, p-p, etc.
From the main menu, select database set-up, then Database Global Information.
There is a dialog box, one of the options is "System for Data Units".
You can choose English or Metric.
See the attached document.
The selection of Pk-Pk or RMS is found under Diagnostic Plotting. from the Tools menu, select Globals, then the Engineering Units tab. Here you can change the units to your preference
inches_to_mm.doc (81 Kb, 48 downloads)
Thanks to everybody for the help and the education in unit conversion, not as simple as I thought.
Ian, your instructions were exactly what I was hoping for, worked like a charm. I had stared at that screen before and totally missed that option. You win the coveted yellow-sticky of appreciation!
While viewing data hit 1,2, or 3 to toggle between acceleration, velocity, and displacement.
Sorry to throw in a spanner, but I see a common misconception appearing here. The relationship between rms and peak being associated with root 2 is purely and uniquely true in the case of a single sine wave. To generally state that you can convert from overall rms to peak using this conversion will almost certainly be incorrect.
Tom - I think you are considering "true peak" in which case your comment is valid.
The subject of the thread was converting overall vibration and said nothing about true peak. If we are simply talking about converting an overall value between rms overall and pk/0 overall, then sqrt(2) is the appropriate conversion IMO.
Since many people have and still do monitor Crest Factor as part of their condition monitoring, and the values are rarely 1.414 but more normally 2-3 or higher, I am not sure what the benefits of "approximate" peak actually are.
If you are working in the US and reporting overall velocity values or spectral peaks , the "standard" (but not universal) units are inches per second pk/0 (for example as identified in NEMA MG-1) . It is a way to express the overall value, not a way to express the TWF true peak.
Take a look at attached two screens from Entek E-monitor.
Screen 1 in ips rms. The 1x vibration is 0.70 and the overall is 0.983845.
Screen 2 is in ips pk/0. The 1x vibration is 0.99. The overall is 1.39137.
The ratio between the spectral components of screen 2 and screen 1 is sqrt(2) .
The ratio between the overall values of of screen 2 and screen 1 is sqrt(2).
0.139137 / 0.0983845= 1.41421667=sqrt(2)
The ratio between ips pk/0 and ips rms (for spectral components and for overall) is sqrt(2).
You are free to choose whatever units you like. Personally, I agree that rms would be a more natural way to express an overall value than pk/0. But I didn't invent the terminology or the standard. It's a little like the debate between metric and imperial/US units. Plenty of people use the imperial/US units even thought they can make a problem more complicated. The important thing to understand the system of units you're using. If you're expressing an overall as a pk/0, then you have to recognize that it is that an overall expressed in pk/0 is not intended to reflect the true peak or an "approximate true peak" as you have said. It is intended to represent the overall.This message has been edited. Last edited by: electricpete,
RMS_VS_PK0_Overall2.ppt (126 Kb, 29 downloads)
The fact that Entek Emonitor does it the wrong way is not a justification.
A spectrum is effectively an rms calculation, so a spectrum in units of peak technically has no meaning anyway.
Since the time signal is the only pure, and hopefully unadulterated signal, it would make sense perhaps to store the occasional time signal so that an overall peak velocity could be calculated in the future if needed.
Note that they use the unfiltered vibration in lieu of filtered vibration as long as the unfiltered vibration meets the limit. The logical basis for this is that the unfiltered vibration refers to the overall and the filtered vibration refers to individual spectral peaks. Both are given here in units of "peak". There is no limit imposed on "true peak" by these specifications. (whether or not there should be is a different question).
Also note they suggest the factor of 18 (=25.4/sqrt2) for converting between peak ips and rms mm/sec.
The assumptions inherent in this terminology:
"peak overall" is NOT the same as "true peak". (twf peak)
peak overall is defined as sqrt(2) times rms overall.
If you intend to compare your vibration to the NEMA MG-1 specifications, the easiest way is to express your overalls in "peak". If you use Entek equipment, your meter and software will facilitate this comparison by displaying the spectrum and the overall in units of peak / 0. I am very sure there are many other standards and instruments that use the same conventions. I am also pretty sure that at least 75% of people in the US state their housing velocity overalls in units of ips pk/0 (as I have defined, not as true peak).
I have already agreed with you that rms overall is a more logical way to express an overall. BUT what is the most logical to us is not the ONLY way to do it. The fact that you happen to prefer a different terminology does not make this terminology wrong.
|Powered by Social Strata|