Cooling Tower Tubular Shaft Vibration

8/12/2018 Cooling tower tubular shaft vibration | AMP Maintenance Forums
HOME / MAINTENANCEFORUMS / ASSET CONDITION MANAGEMENT / POSTS ABOUT VIBRATION/ALIGNMENT/BALANCE

/ COOLING TOWER TUBULAR SHAFT VIBRATION
33 REPLIES
Cooling tower tubular shaft vibration

GEVENAG  MESSENGER
9/5/05  11:13 PM
We have a cooling tower fan ( 14 feet diameter) driven by a 50 HP motor through a gear box.The
motor speed is 1500 rpm and the fan speed is 260 rpm. The fan and gear box is connected by a
tubular shaft of thickness 3 mm and there is no support bearing. The tubular shaft length is 2300
mm.When the fan was run , the maximum vibration was only 2 mm/sec RMS. But, we could see
heavy wobbling at the centre of the tubular shaft. The supplier is asking us to accept based on
the low vibration level and assuring that the shaft will not fail due to wobbling as the tubular shaft
assembly is already dynamically balanced.I could not accept the above explanation by the
supplier. Now what to do.Is it acceptable.
 Original Post
Z  MESSENGER
9/6/05  3:24 AM
Is it acceptable? You need some technical reason to reject this assembly.
What is your concern: is it failure of the drive shaft or the integrity of other components? At
2mm/sec there would seem to be no problem with the fan/motor as long as your measurement
system is reliable.
Do you have a static wobble (bend) or dynamically induced wobble (resonance), which might
induce high stresses and cause fatigue failure - can you estimate the amplitude of the wobble
and work out the stresses to see if there might be a fatigue problem?
There are some low frequencies in this arrangement – is response of the measuring system up
to the job? 260rpm corresponds to just over 4Hz – if you are using an accelerometer based
system is it con gured to go this low? If not, then your 2mm/s will not include a large amplitude
component from the fan if this is generating huigh vibration say, due to unbalance.
https://www.maintenance.org/topic/cooling-tower-tubular-shaft-vibration 1/16
As a starting point, you should determine the frequency of the wobble – as you can see the
wobble, a stroboscope would be best used to determine this. If you don't have a strobe, you need
to be con dent that the predominant frequency measured on the motor/gearbox is that of the
wobble that you can see.
With the machine running, you should measure the amplitude and phase angle of the wobble
frequency in an axial direction, to determine the relative motion of the motor and gearbox.
With the machine at rest (and isolated), I suggest you then conduct some bump tests at the
centre of the drive shaft and then at the fan and gearbox in the axial directions.
With the machine at rest:

a) Fix a dial gauge so that you can measure the runout at the centre of the shaft (it might be
dynamically balanced, but is it straight?)
b) measure the axial swash on the anges at both ends of the drive shaft
c) remove the drive shaft and carry out bump tests on the motor and gearbox
d) use the dial gauge to measure the axial swash of the anges on the motor and gearbox
You should then have enough info to gure out what is causing the wobble and if it represents a
long term problem
I do hope you let us know what the nal outcome of this investigation is
SAM PICKENS  LEADER

9/6/05  7:15 AM
Generally a torque tube is coupled via U-joints or Thomas. The U-joints should be within 3 mils
radially with a maximum of 2 mil centerality. Most manufactures accept 10 mil at the center. Is
your tube seamed and does it have balance wgts ~20% from each end? When you gather
vibration data, also get phase if you can and; does the phase match? If yes and your vibration
@1X is unacceptable, whip could easily be the source.
ELECTRICPETE  LEADER
9/6/05  8:18 AM
A 14-foot fan overhung on a 3 mm (1/8 inches) tubular shaft that is 2300mm (7.5 feet) long?
Did I read it correctly? If so it sure sounds scary.
What is the diameter of that tubular shaft? Also do you happen to know the material?
The vibration was measured at the gearbox bearing housing?
Apparently the vib at the housing was relatively low but movement of the shaft was visibly high. I
would be concerned about shaft fatigue.
9/6/05  8:36 AM
Knowing the shaft diameter (and 1/8" thickness), and estimating the shaft stiffness, someone
could calculate the shaft bending under torque load. 50hp at 260 rpm is the same torque as
675hp at 3600rpm
With an estimate of fan weight, someone could calculate the static de ection and associated
static bending stress from fan weight.
STAN RIDDLE  MESSENGER

9/6/05  10:47 AM
We have used hollow shafts for years. We removed the center bearings. A couple of ours have a
wobble in them, but have never given us any problem. Have you used a dial indicator to measure
the "wobble"?
9/6/05  11:06 AM
Stan - are yours comparable dimensions to these? (A 14-foot fan overhung on a 1/8 inches
thickness, ___diameter, hollow tubular shaft that is 7.5 feet long?)
9/6/05  11:12 AM
Is the fan really overhung or just some bearing removed from the shaft center position and one or
two bearings still at the fan?
"we could see heavy wobbling at the centre of the tubular shaft"
Do you mean center axially between the gearbox and the fan, or some radial center?
Z  MESSENGER
9/6/05  11:56 AM
EP - the likely setup here is that you have a fan in the horizontal plane - this is sitting on top of
and driven at 260 rpm by output shaft of the gearbox (right angle drive-with the 260 rpm output
shaft in the vertical axis) the fan and gearbox have their own support - the drive shaft (running
parallel to the fan blade plane) connects the gearbox to the motor, sited just outsdie the cooling
duct.

9/6/05  12:06 PM
Typical cooling tower fan set-up - horizontal blades, standard g'box mount, right angle drive.
We had a long span - approx. 15 feet, between motor and g'box. It was origiannly spanned with
two jackshafts, which were coupled in the middle by a pillow block bearing, and two more sets of
couplings.
Going to a hollow, larger diameter shaft (ours are a berglass composite ) allowed us to remove
1 bearing and 2 couplings.
9/6/05  12:07 PM 
Thx buzz & Stan. I misinterpretted the comment about no support bearing to mean overhung fan
hanging on that long hollow shaft. THAT would be scary.
I'm not familiar with the setup. We have no cooling towers here. Just a big reservoir. With big
levees towering 60' in the air. Hmmm.
Still interested to know - what is the diameter of the shaft?
DAVID_G  LEADER
9/6/05  4:11 PM 
A hollow shaft ( is it running at 260 RPM or 1500 RPM?) will obviously cause lower vibration then
that of a solid one, due to unbalance. But a shaft also could be perfectly balanced and have
eccentricity. In this case I do not think it is a problem. At 260 RPM even an unbalancesd shaft
should not cause unbalance force amplitude one should be concerned with. Shaft runout could
be veri ed, as suggested by others, with a dial indicator
TONYW  MESSENGER
9/6/05  5:31 PM
Gevenag--
Would you clarify here--if your cooling tower setup is similar to ours, then your hollow jackshaft is
turning at motor speed (around 1500RPM), which, in turn, is driving the gearbox with the fan on
the output shaft. The wobble you're concerned about is on the input/jackshaft, correct?
Tony
RUSTY CAS  LEADER

9/8/05  2:08 AM
This "tube" is not going to be a precision, machined piece. It will either be a welded tube, or be
"drawn" (probably welded as it's cheaper). Either way, you are probably going to have some
physical eccentricity, measured as "runnout" and viewed as "wobble".
If you are able to measure the runnout (slow roll with a dial indicator), then your wobble is
actually eccentricity and shouldn't be a problem if the vibration is OK. However, if when you
measure, you get very little runnout, then your wobble is "dynamic", probably a static whirl....
again this shouldn't be a problem.
In either case, the stresses are static, and don't reverse, so there is no fatigue.
Keep in mind, the naked eye usually exaggerates runnout. I've seen lots of cases of runnout
where I'd have guessed it was 0.100-0.125" or so, and it turned out to only be 0.025-0.040"
9/8/05  3:55 AM
Thanks for all the replies and questions-
1. Fan was stopped and the runout measured at the centre of teh tubular shaft found to be 5
mm(TIR)
2. The tubular shaft is rotating at 1500 rpm.
3.The thickness of the tubular shaft is 3 mm and the outer diameter is 75 mm
4.Originally spanned with two jackshafts, which were coupled in the middle by a pillow block
bearing, and two more sets of couplings.Now , it has been removed and connected by a signle
hollow shaft due to prevent frequent bearing and coupling failures.This modi cation was done
earlier in a fan and sucessfully running.
5.The vibration was measured on the motor (Max 2 mm/sec RMS)and there is no provision for
taking vibration on the gear box.
6. The setup exactly matches with the setup explined by Mr.Stan Riddle and Mr.Tony.
Regards,
Gevenag
9/8/05  4:08 AM
the stresses are static, and don't reverse, so there is no fatigue
Very intresting.Is it not that when the tubular shaft moves up and down in the centre during
running will cause fatigue.Let us assume that the ends for the shaft are xed(Coupling ) and the
shaft is having a lateral movement at the centre..Will it not cause shaft breakage .Can you explain
more on "stresses are static"
MOTORDOC  MESSENGER
9/8/05  9:18 AM
This is a hollow drive shaft and should be straight - very little runout. A small amount of bowing
(runout) at a standstill will cause greater bowing during operation due to centrifugal force. This is
actually a 'dynamic stress' and, while it will not cause fatigue in the center of the shaft, it can
cause additional stresses at both ends of the shaft (vector problem) and what it is coupled to.
The amount of stress will depend upon the mass of the shaft.
Check not just the vertical/horizontal vibration, what is the axial vibration? If all are relatively low,
then go with it.
Howard

9/8/05  9:32 AM
I have done R&D for the automotive industry on drive shafts. YOu'd be surprised how large the
tolerances are. Naturally you have run-out at the coupling ends or yokes and run-out in the
middle. In addition you have (depending on type of third member) centrality and oat - all with a
tolerance speci cation.
Normally centrality is ~3 mils unless hi-RPM is expected (race car). Run-out at the yoke is ~5
milss and 15 in the center. Yes; they are loose. I recommend tightening those a bit. Float to 2
mils, yoke run-out to 3 or better and the center (long span) 10 mils or better. Obviously the lower
the number the better.
Long spacer coupling is a snap usually using 2 dial indicators (one on each coupling) - much
better and faster than laser.
I hope all are familar w/Long Spacer Coupling method/type alignment. Looks like I'll be doing a
cooling tower this week myself; alignment and balance six blades. It's either that or pile up the
wood for a re in the very near future.

9/8/05  10:01 PM
My assertion is that the stress is "static" in a shaft that has a centrifugaly induced "bow" in it...
once it bows, in the absence of any other forces, it stays bowed.... it doesn't ex back and forth if
the end connections are su ciently exible to allow it to run in its deformed state. The jackshaft
couplings I see on cooling towers look to be pretty exible. My 'understanding' of "fatigue" is that
the stress has to reverse to cause a fatigue failure. I don't think you'll get reversing stress in this
situation, hence no fatigue failure.
This is just my take on this... I'm not a PhD or anything.... someone smarter than me can probably
explain why I'm wrong.......

9/9/05  7:22 AM
Normally 'jack-shafts' aren't used on cooling towers nor 'jack-shaft' couplings (never really heard
of a 'jack-shaft' coupling).
Typically you have a motor, coupling (coupling should not be a exible type), drive shaft or torque
tube (Long Spacer Coupling), coupling and right-angle gearbox. A jack-shaft con guration is a
minimum of two shafts parallel an typically three shafts parallel with only one being offset and
driven by belts usually. Some torque tubes have carrier bearings in the center and may or may not
have a joint in the center.
You can have bow from centrifugal force or trosional load and may have different mode shapes
and moments of bending. Generally torsional will result from a miscalculation and it's back to the
drawing board. Whip will or can result when the tolerance for bow has been exceeded. And
although it may set, it probably won't take a set but may not completely return to its original
position.
On torque tubes or Long Spacer Couplings you must not have radially exible couplings. Coupling
design must be of a type that exes angularily about its center such as a U-joint or Thomas -
hence the need for two in a series. If you try to use a exible coupling for this application you will
regret it.
9/9/05  9:52 AM
Rusty:
Good question.
Fatigue does not just come from a bending back and forth. That is an example of a fatiguing
process. Actual fatigue comes from an object wearing (and eventually failing) resulting from a
force acting on it. Fatigue is a stress failure involving cyclical loading of the material.
Static analysis involves observing an object that is stationary with a constant loading.
Dynamic analysis involves observing an object in motion and the associated forces acting upon
it.
In some cases, it is easier to take a snapshot of an object in motion and observe the forces
acting upon it while it is ˜static.' It would give you a very rough estimate of conditions for that
object. However, it will not give you the complete picture of the system.
In this case, you have a signi cant system, which we will limit to the motor, shaft, coupling, drive
shaft, coupling, gearbox shaft and gearbox. Of course there are related bearings, seals, etc.
Based upon your comments, I am assuming that you are using a set of exible couplings versus
a U-Joint style system.
When the system is at rest (static), the loads on each component of the system are towards the
ground and the forces are related to the resting mass of the system. Assuming all components
within the system are ˜perfect,' the system is started.
The motor: During the in-rush period, the insulation system polarizes, de-polarizes, then polarizes
again as AC current operates through it. The coils ex inwards towards the rotor due to the very
strong magnetic elds. This causes dynamic stress to the insulation system mechanically. The
shaft turns and the balls within the bearings begin to track in their grooves causing stress to the
bearing components. Torques is delivered through the rotor and shaft to the coupling, causing a
torsional stress to each component.
The torsional stress causes elasticity in the motor shaft, coupling, drive shaft, opposite coupling,
shaft then into the gearbox. The energy is transferred into the gears, bearings, etc. which all have
stress transferred through them.
In a perfect system, there is a twisting of the associated shafts such that the angle of the motor
shaft to gear shaft is not the same as when the system was stationary. The amount of twisting is
a result of the geometry of the components and the elasticity of the materials (you can see this
in an exaggerated way by taking a rubber hose, holding it straight and twisting it). Drive shafts are
normally hollow so that the torsional stress is transferred to the outer edge of the tube and a
cylinder bends less than a solid shaft under stress.
All of the stresses are dealt in vectors due to the dynamic forces.
To be continued...
9/9/05  9:52 AM
Now, we begin to add in real forces, such as the issues that we are looking at in this example.
Motor and Gearbox:

The internal workings of the motor and gearbox will cause some level of exion in the associated
shafts, gears and wear and tear on the bearings. Within the motor, the rotor reacts to these
forces through movement within the magnetic elds. These forces are transferred to
components within each machine plus out to the couplings and drive shaft. Dynamic unbalance
will add to the forces working, within each, centrifugally.
Unbalance in the shafts, couplings and drive shaft will cause a number of radial and axial
stresses through the system. Torsional bending, the result of all of the real misalignments,
straightness issues and unbalance also come into play. Some level of resonance will also exist
through the system transferred back and forth between the motor and gearbox.
The bend in the drive shaft, as Sam pointed out, will be dynamically exaggerated due to torsion
and centrifugal issues. The amount of instantaneous torque has an impact, as well. One of the
reasons that automotive drive shafts have a looser tolerance is that the instantaneous torque is
far less than that from an electric motor.
Now, keeping in mind that all of these forces are occuring in different directions (most likely), we
will look at a ˜static' example of what is going on:
The shaft is bowing at some point due to bends in the tube and material thicknesses. If using a
strobe, the action is stopped such that the bowing occurs upwards, as viewed from the side, you
would notice that the couplings absorb some of the force but that the shafts at the gearbox and
motor are still at an angle. The bearings at the input side of both machines act as a pivot point
and the far bearings on the motor and gear shaft act as stationary points (also pivot points). This
causes the rotor and gears to ex within their systems.
If you then adjust the strobe such that the shaft moves slowly, you will notice that it orbits and
that the motor rotor and gears orbit opposite (although, in reality, it may not be exactly 180
degrees due to other forces).
This all results in signi cant forces acting on each of the components in the system in such a
way that fatigue of some components will occur (radial and axial forces resulting from vector-
related stresses). The fatigue rate will depend upon the strength of each component, including
bearings, motor, gearbox, etc.
By the way, this is also a similar explanation as to why alignment, balancing, etc.
Hope this helps in thinking static and dynamic.
Howard
9/9/05  12:56 PM
I agree with Rusty's comment ... if shaft has a rotating bow shape which doesn't change over
time (only rotates), that in itself shouldn't put any fatigue cycles on the shaft itself.
There are lots of other aspects we could consider and Doc has brought out some good points as
well although I haven't digested them all. One point I think I picked up is that if for example the
forcing function were misalignment and the "orbit" of the shaft was something other than a circle
(narrow oval or a line), that would create exing of the shaft which changes as the shaft rotates
and that could lead to shaft fatigue.
Good discussion all around.

9/12/05  10:44 PM
Sam, you're right... my use of the term "jack-shaft" is incorrect. "Long spacer coupling" is better.
As for exible couplings, the ones I see are if fact exible -- they have rubber grommets in them --
but not " exible" as we are used to thinking of the term. I'll post some pics later in the week of
what I typically see.

9/13/05  7:12 AM
Thanks Rusty,
I think you should be using a semi- exible on 'long spacer coupling' or torque tubes'. A exible
coupling is out of design spec for this application. A Thomsa coupling will hold radial and allow
angular as will the U-joint but with minimal radial slipage.
Generally radial slippage will lock to one side loosing centrality and creating imbalance.
RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER
9/13/05  8:54 AM
Rusty & Sam,

I have been calling those jack shafts too. So the correct terminology is "Long spacer coupling"?
Also, the ones I have seen and balanced the shafts in place, all have had the rubber gromets. Are
these types of exible couplings? I have seen several of the gromet types in different plants so I
assume they are very common. And they do seem to hold up real well.
Thanks,
Ronnie

9/13/05  11:23 AM
Just saying a rubber third member is loose in my opinion and I hate to assume exactly what your
are talking about.
Example: a Dodge para ex is not to be used for this application. Woods makes a couple or more
of this category but they can vary as to exactly what they are and what their intended use should
be.
Making it simple: a Thomas can only ex about its center and maintains radial position - this type
design is a must for drive shafts, torque tubes, etc.......
So much of the time on this thread or any of this type we only have limited time and are not
writing a book; only trying to help. Please understand I'm not trying to be critical we've just limited
and sometimes statements are made on limited information or data and therefore I try not to be
too critical as simply I may misunderstand or get the wrong picture - afterall, not that hard for me
to do.
The U-joint also falls into a restrained radial movement that quali es it for a 'long spacer
coupling' or drive shaft or torque tube. As long as the design restricts radial movement and
allows angular you can use a pair - always in pairs due to the limited radial or no radial
movement.

9/13/05  7:45 PM
Sam,
I have read probably all of your post on this forum and have been impressed with your
knowledge.
We had twelve motors come into our shop today. All of them from cooling towers at Chevron
Re nery in Mississippi. I heard the cooling towers were distroyed by hurricane Katrina and some
of the motors were hanging from the conduit. I opened the T-box on one so we could test it and
the connection had been pulled up into the exible conduit. I guess the electricans couldn't get to
the connection so they cut the exible conduit about four feet from the motor. Sorry, I was
rambling a little.
Anyway, all of the motors have the type of coupling I was talking about and I assume the ones
Rusty was referring to. I wish I had taken a picture and posted it so someone could identify it and
put a name on it. I will be back in the shop Friday and will take some pictures and post them if
Rusty hasn't already.
I will attempt to discribe the coupling. The collar is split and tappered and the hub of the coupling
is solid and the ange I think has ve bolt holes maybe six? The bolt holes have rubber gromets
that the bolts go through between the two couplings and the gromets protrude axially. When the
two couplings are coupled together, no metal touches, only the gromets. The coupling also has
bolt holes between each gromet for balancing. At least that is what I have used them for and the
ones that came into our shop today had bolts in these holes with washers which appeared to be
for balance. If anyone knows what the name of these type couplings are, I would like to know.
Thanks,
Ronnie

9/14/05  9:18 AM
Thank you for the compliment: I try to help with some of the little I know and besides - they say a
blind hog nds an acorn every once-in-a-while.
I'm not exactly sure of your coupling but it sounds like a pin type. A number of years ago there
was a Big Boy Coupling and I think they went out of business or were bought. The Lovejoy JIS
coupling kind of ts your description. The Big Boy had spherical pins though.
These type coupling will work but not the most desireable in my opinion. Life expectancy isn't as
good as the Thomas. The Thomas is the best for cooling towers as far as I'm concerned. It's
design is perfectly tted for the application; no radial misalilgnment, very good balance
properties, no lubrication and allows for angular misalinment which compensates for parallel
when used in tandem.
A posting of the photo will clear things up.
However, balancing torque tubes is generally done ~25% out from each end. Balancing at the
coupling and on the torque tube side may work but also may not be the best approach. But it can
get the numbers within tolerance.
One last thing: you can use one of the holes for an indicator adaptor. The stem of the indicator
protrudes through the one half to the other enabling you to read the angle. One angle reading
from each coupling is all you need to perform alignment. The combination of the two coupling
readings will correct parallel and angular at one movement. It is usually a one-shot alignment
using this method and within a speci cation of 30 seconds of angle (1/120th of one degree). I
have written a program to make the calculation but it is easily done by hand. Write me on the side
if you need this.
Again, thanks Ronnie for the kind words.

9/14/05  9:25 AM
Just one thing to add to Sam's good comments. We have several couplings like this. I'd
recommend an annual inspection of the rubber bushings. They wear easily, and are hard to spot
unless you do a "hands on" inspection.
DAN TIMBERLAKE  LEADER

9/16/05  6:09 PM
rst bending critical of a tubular (hollow circular) steel driveshaft that is 96 inches (2450 mm)
long between its coupling centers and 4 inch diameter is about 2800 rpm. As long as this torque
tube/jack shaft/long spacer/drive shaft is bigger than 4 inch (100 mm) OD then it should not
"whip" at 1400 rpm, unless the wall thickness variation is extreme toward the middle and causes
a huge heavy spot there.
Bigger diameter would raise critical speed. Thicker wall hurts critical speed slightly.
50 HP @ 1500 rpm = 175 lb-ft torque. That is nothing for 4 inch diameter (.125 wall) steel tube.
4 inch dia >>Tubing<< tolerances are .015 inch ovality and .025 runout for a 60 inch long tube.
Good workmanship requires skillful setup and welding to keep a driveshaft runout better than
about 0.04 inch TIR at the middle. With shoe type xtures a driveshaft can be straightened.
(With an ordinary bench vice a tubular driveshaft can be dented and destroyed)
Welding on balance weights without bene t of hard learned lessons and frequent runout checks
will result in way more than 0.04 inch runout such that the heavy spot will get heavier with each
correction.

9/16/05  6:45 PM
Here are some pictures of the coupling for the cooling tower motors I was describing.
 Attachments
Hide 
Photos (1)

9/16/05  6:46 PM
Here is another angle of the same coupling.
Thanks,
Ronnie

9/16/05  6:47 PM
It has been a long day. I forgot to attach the picure.

 Attachments
Hide 
Photos (1)
Views: 644
Likes (0)
HOME / MAINTENANCEFORUMS / ASSET CONDITION MANAGEMENT / POSTS ABOUT VIBRATION/ALIGNMENT/BALANCE

/ COOLING TOWER TUBULAR SHAFT VIBRATION

Cooling Tower Tubular Shaft Vibration - AMP Maintenance Forums PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cooling Tower Tubular Shaft Vibration - AMP Maintenance Forums PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

8/12/2018 Cooling tower tubular shaft vibration | AMP Maintenance Forums

HOME / MAINTENANCEFORUMS / ASSET CONDITION MANAGEMENT / POSTS ABOUT VIBRATION/ALIGNMENT/BALANCE

Is it acceptable? You need some technical reason to reject this assembly.

With the machine at rest:

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

Did I read it correctly? If so it sure sounds scary.

The vibration was measured at the gearbox bearing housing?

STAN RIDDLE  MESSENGER

STAN RIDDLE  MESSENGER

Still interested to know - what is the diameter of the shaft?

RUSTY CAS  LEADER

Thanks for all the replies and questions-

2. The tubular shaft is rotating at 1500 rpm.

3.The thickness of the tubular shaft is 3 mm and the outer diameter is 75 mm

the stresses are static, and don't reverse, so there is no fatigue

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

RUSTY CAS  LEADER

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

Motor and Gearbox:

Hope this helps in thinking static and dynamic.

Good discussion all around.

RUSTY CAS  LEADER

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER

Rusty & Sam,

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER

SAM PICKENS  LEADER

A posting of the photo will clear things up.

Again, thanks Ronnie for the kind words.

STAN RIDDLE  MESSENGER

DAN TIMBERLAKE  LEADER

RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER

RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER

Here is another angle of the same coupling.

RONNIE LYNN  MESSENGER

It has been a long day. I forgot to attach the picure.

HOME / MAINTENANCEFORUMS / ASSET CONDITION MANAGEMENT / POSTS ABOUT VIBRATION/ALIGNMENT/BALANCE

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi