A Balanced Approach to

Acceleration and Velocity

Monitoring
Summary
This article discusses the characteristic differences between
acceleration and velocity monitoring. It is essentially written to
gain a practical and intuitive sense of the differences between
acceleration and velocity by means of illustrative software
examples.

JM03001
Joost Boerhout
SKF Condition Monitoring
14 pages
May 2003

SKF Reliability Systems

@ptitudeXchange
5271 Viewridge Court
San Diego, CA 92123
United States
tel. +1 858 496 3554
fax +1 858 496 3555
email: info@aptitudexchange.com
Internet: www.aptitudexchange.com

Use of this document is governed by the terms

and conditions contained in @ptitudeXchange.
 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

History of Velocity and Acceleration ..............................................................................................3

The Essential Difference..................................................................................................................3

“Unity Gain” Point...........................................................................................................................3

A Practical Example ........................................................................................................................4

Pulse Position in Time Waveform Influences Spectral Result. .......................................................7

Velocity Measurements ...................................................................................................................8

The Big Picture ..............................................................................................................................11

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................14

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 2

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring
History of Velocity and
Acceleration
When rotating machinery starts to deteriorate,
quite often, machine vibration is one of the
observed phenomena. In the past – “bad”
vibration was distinguished from “normal”
vibration by sound (noise) and touch
(temperature). No matter how skillful a human
operator may become at picking up machinery
problems, a more deterministic and accurate
method was necessary to identify problems in
rotating machinery more effectively.
In the toolset of solutions, one often finds
acceleration and velocity sensors as a means
to measure machine vibrations. Historically,
velocity measurements were preferred as it is
roughly proportional to our sense of hearing –
a loud noise roughly corresponds with a
serious defect. The ISO standard 2372 – 1974
helps in developing a practical understanding
of vibration levels as expressed in velocity.
On the other hand, acceleration measurements
are proportional to force – to which no human
sense is directly proportional. Though
measuring acceleration is also a popular
measurement type, it is not used as often as
velocity. Differences between velocity and
acceleration are quite often not well known.
This article intends to give the reader a
“feeling” for these differences to enable a
practical approach to each measurement
method.
The Essential Difference
Vibration is typically measured in engineering
units for displacement (mils, µm), velocity
(ips, mm/s), or acceleration (g’s). At a given
vibration frequency (CPM or Hz), there is a
specific relationship between displacement,
velocity, and acceleration.
© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved
Most sensors are accelerometers so a direct
measurement carries the unit “g." To convert
this into velocity, the method of “integration”
is used. When an accelerometer signal is
integrated, twice the resulting unit is
displacement. The term “integration” results
from the physical and mathematical
relationships between acceleration, velocity,
and displacement units of measure for
vibration.
“Integration” is a conversion process that
multiplies each frequency in the original
spectrum with a certain factor. The result is
the “integrated spectrum." It is important to
understand that this factor changes for every
frequency in the spectrum. Specifically, this
factor is proportional to 1 / f where “f”
represents the frequency being converted. For
double integration the relationship is 1 / f2. For
the remainder of this document, only single
integration will be considered.
“Unity Gain” Point
There is a special frequency for which the
conversion factor between acceleration
(measured in g’s) and velocity (measured in
ips) is exactly 1 (one). This frequency is
61.4Hz or 3684 CPM. Frequencies lower than
61.4 Hz are shown with higher amplitudes in
velocity compared to acceleration.
Frequencies higher than 61.4 Hz are shown
with lower amplitudes in velocity compared to
acceleration. This “unity gain” point is
determined by the physical relationship
between acceleration and velocity. It is not
determined by a particular manufacturer’s
implementation of acceleration to velocity
conversion method.
The following graphs depict the acceleration
and velocity frequency dependent relationship,
using a double log scale.
3
 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 1. Relationship between acceleration and velocity using a double log scale.

Figure 1 shows that below 61.4Hz,
amplitudes in the velocity spectrum are
greater. Note that the graph’s axis shows
amplitudes and frequencies with a log scale.
Normally, spectra are shown with linear
scales, as this is more practical for field use.
The same graph but with a linear scale is
shown in Figure 2. Notice how strong the
velocity spectrum is below frequencies of
61.4Hz and how strong the signal is
attenuated above this frequency.

Figure 2. Relationship between acceleration and velocity using a lin-lin scale.

For the remainder of this document, we will A Practical Example

regard frequencies below 61.4Hz (3684
CPM) as “low” frequencies, and frequencies
above the unity gain point as “high”
frequencies.
© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved
Figure 3a and 3b show time and FFT plots
of a pulse and three sine waves measured at
an accelerometer input. The sine waves are
clearly visible as three distinct frequencies
4
 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

in the FFT plot. Even though the pulse

appears simple in the time domain, it is a
much more complex function in the
frequency domain. It shows as a number of
“hoops,” starting rather high at the low
frequencies and quickly tapering off at
higher frequencies. This behavior is entirely
in accordance with Fourier conversion
theory. The shape of the hoops in the
frequency domain is commonly referred to
as the Sinc-function.
How does the acceleration spectrum relate to
its peer velocity spectrum? According to the
conversion method discussed above, and
depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the low
frequencies should appear with much higher
amplitudes than the high frequencies. Figure
4 shows the result.

Figure 3a. Acceleration time waveform of a pulse and three sinusoidal frequencies.

Figure 3b. Acceleration spectrum of time waveform shown in 3a.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 5

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 4. Velocity spectrum of time waveform shown in 3a.

Figure 5a. Acceleration time waveform with pulse towards the start of the waveform.

Figure 5b. Acceleration time waveform with pulse in the middle of the waveform.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 6

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

As expected, Figure 4 shows extreme low Pulse Position in Time

frequencies while suppressing high
frequencies. This effect is often referred to
as a “ski-slope.” Though the sinusoidal
frequencies are still visible in this example,
one can easily imagine how pulses in the
time domain can make it very difficult to
perform good frequency analysis. Moreover,
velocity spectra have much more trouble
with time domain pulses than acceleration
spectra due to the nature of integrating.
Waveform Influences Spectral
Result.
Here is an interesting question: If a pulse is
located in the middle of the waveform
versus towards the beginning or end, should
the resulting spectrum be different? The
answer is perhaps surprising: yes, the
location of the pulse influences the shape of
the spectrum!

Figure 5c. Acceleration spectrum of time waveform shown in Figure 5a.

Figure 5d. Acceleration spectrum of time waveform shown in Figure 5b.

The following figures show the difference located in the middle of the time waveform
between spectra computed on a pulse at the results in a much stronger low frequency
beginning of a time waveform versus spectra ski-slope. This gets worse when measuring
computed on a pulse at the middle of a time velocity spectra, as Figures 6a and 6b show.
waveform. As Figures 5a - 5d show, a pulse
© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 7
 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 6a. Velocity spectrum of time waveform shown in Figure 5a.

Figure 6b. Velocity spectrum of time waveform shown in Figure 5b.

Figures 6a and 6b show that a pulse located Velocity Measurements

in the middle of the time waveform has a
destructive effect on our ability to analyze a
velocity spectrum. The reason a pulse
located towards the middle of the waveform
has a more pronounced ski-slope, is because
a frequency window function such as
Hanning forces signals towards the middle
of a waveform to be emphasized over those
located towards the ends. Frequency
window functions are intended to limit the
side effects of a time waveform’s
discontinuous behavior at both ends.
Velocity measurements are not ideal for
high frequency displays, so why all this
emphasis on being able to display high
frequency content? Is high frequency data
worthwhile looking at? Are there sources of
information in high frequencies that are not
available in low frequency data such as
velocity?
Most bearing defects are several multiples
higher then running speed (except for the
cage defect frequency). A typical small ball
bearing is SKF’s 6202 with a 15mm (0.6”)
bore and 35mm (1.4”) housing diameter.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 8

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring
The predominate defect frequencies of this
bearing are (Hz numbers calculated for a
shaft speed of 3600 RPM):
BPFO: 3.05 orders or 182 Hz (10979 CPM)
BPFI: 4.95 orders or 297 Hz (17820 CPM)
BDF: 3.79 orders or 238 Hz (14300 CPM)
with BPFO is the ball pass frequency outer
ring, BPFI is the ball pass frequency inner
ring, and BDF is the ball defect frequency
(twice the ball spin frequency).
As you can see from this example, the defect
frequencies are well above the unity gain
point and are therefore considered “high”
frequency content. However, in the paper
industry shaft speeds are usually much lower
then 3600 RPM. Besides, spherical bearings
of much bigger size are more typical. Using
SKF’s 22238C bearing as an example, this
bearing has the following characteristics:
BPFO: 8.2 orders
BPFI: 10.8 orders
BDF: 7.08 orders
Bore: 190mm (7.5”)
Housing: 340mm (13.4”)
This bearing can be found in dryer cylinders
of a paper machine. Dryer cylinders run
much slower then 3600 RPM, a typical
speed is anywhere between 100 and 150
RPM. This means that bearing defects for
this bearing can be found in the following
ranges:
BPFO: 13.67 – 20.51 Hz (820 – 1230 CPM)
BPFI: 17.99 – 26.99 Hz (1079 – 1619 CPM)
BDF: 11.80 – 17.70 Hz (708 – 1062 CPM)
These frequencies are well below the unity
gain point (61.4Hz or 3684 CPM)
suggesting that a velocity measurement is
superior for detecting defects with these
© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved
bearings. However, several mitigating
factors come in to play:
1. May machine or application related
phenomena have a low frequency
character? These frequencies may
obscure bearing defects or simply make
the defect spectra more difficult to read.
The example signal shown in Figures 3
through 6 may very well be generated by
the application, either suggesting normal
or abnormal behavior.
2. Electrical noise is most prominent at 50
or 60 Hz and higher frequencies.
3. Sensor noise (which has higher
amplitudes at lower frequencies).
Perhaps the most important factor for
considering a high(er) frequency
measurement is that the nature of a bearing
defect is always “pulse-like.” This simply
means that a bearing defect frequency
occurs not only as its own fundamental but
many harmonics of that fundamental are
often seen in spectra as well. Using the
BPFO frequency of the 22238C bearing
above, this means that not only 13.67 Hz is
visible but also harmonics up to 10 – 20
times higher are not uncommon! In addition,
harmonics of the fundamental bearing defect
frequency all have different amplitudes.
Quite often higher harmonics have higher
amplitudes!
Figure 7 demonstrates this rather
dramatically. This documents an application
with a BPFI of 12.08 x RPM. As the figure
shows, the harmonic cursors starting at the
10th harmonic and higher, clearly show the
defect frequency. Lower harmonics are
hardly visible! Figure 8 shows the same
spectrum but as a velocity measurement. As
this figure shows, the velocity measurement
for this sample frequency shows no
meaningful data.
9
 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 7. Acceleration spectrum showing high frequency bearing defect harmonics.

Figure 8 depicts a velocity spectrum with a low frequency measurement was captured
rather high sample frequency. To give a using velocity. Figure 9 depicts the results.
velocity measurement a better chance also a

Figure 8. Velocity spectrum. Higher frequency harmonics are more suppressed.

Notice that figure 9 shows no bearing

defects but only multiples of running speed
suggesting a misalignment.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 10

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 9. Low frequency velocity measurement.

The Big Picture significant change in spectral content

Figures 7, 8, and 9 document a monitored
bearing in a bow roll (paper stretch roll)
configuration. Due to the nature of the
application, the bearings in a bow roll are all
somewhat misaligned. A strong and/or long
duration of bearing misalignment may lead
to premature bearing failure. The bearing at
this location was monitored with three
different measurements: velocity,
acceleration, and enveloping band 3.
Figures 10a and 10b show the velocity and
acceleration trends for the horizontal
measurement. Figure 10a and 10b both show
that towards the end of the recorded trend a
appears. However, whereas the acceleration
trend suggests a disastrous development, the
velocity trend appears to indicate a less
severe situation. What has happened? Figure
7 says it all; this shows an acceleration
spectrum taken towards the end of the trend
showing very high BPFI frequencies. The
velocity spectrum (Figure 9), however,
shows nothing of this. By the time the BPFI
starts to become a dominant pattern, the
continuous misalignment wears out the
bearing thus increasing clearances of the
bearing thus lowering the velocity values
measured.

Figure 10a. Velocity trend for bow-roll application.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 11

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 10b. Acceleration trend for bow-roll application.

Figure 11a shows the velocity spectrum at
the onset of the recorded trend. Compare
this to figure 11b which depicts the same
measurement but taken towards the end of
the recorded trend. Notice that the 1 times
rotating speed is much higher at first, but
other then that there is no significant
difference between these two spectra.

Figure 11a. Velocity spectrum measured at the beginning of the recorded trend (before the failure occurred).

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 12

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 11b. Velocity spectrum measured at the end of the recorded trend (after the failure occurred).

The enveloping measurement shows the repeating harmonic behavior. Enveloping

same phenomenon as the acceleration
measurement (Figures 12a, 12b, 12c). Due
to the demodulation used by enveloping it is
possible to measure with a lower sample
frequency, keeping a modest number of
lines and still have very good frequency
resolution. Secondly, unlike acceleration,
enveloping is sensitive to “modulated” or
suppresses rotational components by pre-
filtering. It also suppresses noise and other
random patterns by emphasizing harmonic
patterns (energy of related frequencies is
summed). Due to these effects enveloping
spectra show very good signal to noise
ratios.

Figure 12a. Enveloping trend of the bow-roll application.

© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved 13

 A Balanced Approach to Acceleration and Velocity Monitoring

Figure 12b. Spectrum at the onset of the trend shown.

Figure 12c. Spectrum towards end of the trend.

Conclusion many different sources. Acceleration

Is there any usage for velocity
measurements, or are acceleration
measurements always outperforming
velocity measurements? There is certainly
not such a black and white difference.
Whereas acceleration measurements may
have the advantage of greater insight in
early fault detection and fault development,
velocity measurements may be used as
“energy indicators” using the overall value
as a simple “severity indicator”. However, it
is important to realize that acceleration as
well as velocity spectra are built-up from
© 2004 SKF Reliability Systems All Rights Reserved
measurements show a different aspect of
these sources than velocity measurements.
In particular: they show more detail for
higher frequencies. On top, enveloped
acceleration shows modulation and impact
effects (such as defects) very well. To fully
understand ones machinery, it is best to
deploy several measurement types at each
location and to focus these measurements
towards the sources one perceives as
condition indicators.
For more information, see
http://www.aptitudexchnage.com
14