A New Proximity Probe to Overcome

Eddy Current Probe Limitations

By Jackson Lin and Marc R. Bissonnette, VibroSystM Inc., Qubec, Canada

ABSTRACT
A new proximity probe has been designed that overcomes the technical limitations of
Eddy current probes. This new probe uses a proven type of capacitive technology to
match or exceed the performance of Eddy current probes in many critical aspects.
Two separate tests comparing the performance of the capacitive proximity probe with
the performance of an Eddy current proximity probe were conducted. The results
show the capacitive proximity probe to be immune to many of the effects that influence
the vibration signal of an Eddy current probe. For environments where shaft surface
roughness, magnetic field, inconsistent target metallurgical irregularities, or shaft
currents may exist, the capacitive proximity probe offers a strong alternative to an
Eddy current probe for accurate vibration measurement.
Introduction
To provide effective machinery vibration protection, a reliable and accurate measurement must be provided by the vibration transducer. For large rotating machines
like generators and turbines that have low levels of rotor-to-bearing vibration
transmissibility, the key transducer type is the proximity probe. However, Eddy current
proximity probes, the standard non-contact probe for 35 years, have always
possessed certain inherent design limitations that have remained unaddressed.
A new proximity probe using proven capacitive technology has been designed that
overcomes the technical limitations of Eddy current probes. The performance of the
new capacitive probe and an Eddy current probe are compared and discussed based
on two tests : the first at a large motor manufacturing site; the second at a hydroelectric generating facility.

Comparison of Eddy Current vs Capacitive Technology

Eddy current probes operate upon a magnetic operating principle. Basically, a highfrequency signal is transmitted by the probe driver (oscillator-demodulator) to the tip of
the probe. The coil in the probe tip radiates the signal into the observed target as a
magnetic field. As the conductive target nears the probe tip, Eddy currents are generated which diminish the strength of the magnetic field which, in turn, weakens the DC
output of the probe driver. The probe driver linearizes this DC output over a certain
measuring range. This linearized signal has both an AC and DC component.

The AC component represents the motion of the target relative to the probe tip
(i.e. relative vibration) whereas the DC component represents the average gap
between the target and probe. While both signal components provide valuable
information, it is the AC component that is of interest for vibration measurement.
Capacitive proximity probes operate upon
an electrical field principle. Anelectrical
field is created in the air gap between the
probe tip and a target, i.e. the rotor shaft.
As the gap between the target and the
probe tip changes, the modulated
capacitive current is monitored and
linearized. Thus, the key parameter that
this vibration measurement depends
upon is the capacitance of the air gap.
Capacitive measurement technology is
independent of magnetic field, target
surface irregularities and the
metallurgical properties of the target.

Fig. 1: PCS-102 Capacitive Proximity Prob e i

1. CASE STUDY #1 : Probe Comparison at Large Motor Manufacturing Site

Allowable electrical and mechanical runout levels
Rotating machinery manufacturers must often meet very tight specifications for
allowable electrical and mechanical runout for rotor shafts. API-670 requires that
combined total electrical and mechanical runout does not exceed 25% of the
maximum allowed peak-to-peak vibration amplitude or 6 micrometers (0.25 mil),
whichever is greater. Since some users set maximum vibration amplitudes as low
as 0.80mils, the allowable runout may be as low as 0.20mils. Even with diamond
burnishing of the rotor shaft, runout levels this low may be very difficult for machinery
manufacturers to achieve.

Fig. 2: Probe Test Arrangement - Capacitive proximity probe

shown below LVDT probe observing rotor shaft motion.

Description Of Test Set-Up

Figure 2 above shows the probe arrangement. The probes utilized were an LVDT
probe, an Eddy current proximity probe and the PCS-102 capacitive proximity probe.
The capacitive and Eddy current probes were alternately paired with the LVDT probe to
observe the motion of the rotor shaft. The probes were set up to measure the
mechanical and electrical runout of a 4-pole rotor shaft mounted on a lathe. Probe
readings were taken along the shaft circumference next to the rotor journal where
proximity probes are normally installed. It should be noted that the test shaft was not
machined on the test lathe so the mechanical runout level is higher than it would
normally be. A probe yoke device was used to hold the LVDT probe and proximity
probes firmly in place.
The LVDT is a transducer which at all times is in contact with the rotor shaft surface.
As the rotor turns, it traces out the actual mechanical profile of the rotor circumference.
The two proximity probes, being non-contact sensors, also attempt to detect the
mechanical motion of the rotor. However, the proximity probes due to their
non-contact design incur some degree of error in their measurements of rotor motion.
The difference between the readings taken by the LVDT transducer and each proximity
probe is by definition the level of electrical runout for that proximity probe.
A reference point was marked at a point on the rotor circumference. The rotor was
turned at slow speed (7 RPM). Under different conditions, one set of measurements
was taken for the Eddy current probe matched with the LVDT probe and one set of
measurements was taken for the capacitive probe matched with the same LVDT
probe. Since the LVDT was next to the proximity probes, the difference in readings
would provide the level of electrical runout for each type of proximity probe.
Measurements were taken over one rotation under the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Eddy current probe observing the unburnished shaft.

Capacitive probe observing the unburnished shaft.
Eddy current probe observing the burnished shaft.
Capacitive probe observing the burnished shaft.

Additionally, it was intended to scratch the observed shaft surface to test the sensitivity
of the two proximity probes to this type of irregularity in their observed path. Since an
existing scratch was found on the shaft, this was used for the comparison.
Results
A summary of the test results is provided in Figures 3 through 6. For each condition,
three sets of measurements were taken over one revolution of the shaft. Visual
inspection showed no significant discrepancies between the readings of each set of
three so for brevity, only the first set of readings for each test condition is presented
herein.

Condition 1
Proximity probes observing the unburnished rotor shaft
It was decided to test the probe measurements on an unburnished shaft. The capacitive and Eddy current probe results are given in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
Capacitive Probe Unburnished Shaft

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

Vibration (mils)

Vibration (mils)

Eddy Current Probe Unburnished Shaft

0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

-0.3

Electrical Runout

-0.3

Electrical Runout

-0.4

Eddy Current Probe

-0.4

Capacitive Probe

-0.5

LVDT Probe

-0.5

LVDT Probe

45

90

135
180
225
Angle (degrees)

270

315

Figure 3: Eddy current probe observing

the unburnished shaft.

360

45

90

135
180
225
Angle (degrees)

270

315

360

Figure 4: Capacitive probe observing the

unburnished shaft.

The Eddy current probe (Figure 3) exhibits a peak-to-peak level of electrical runout of
0.54mils which is fairly typical for an unburnished shaft. The waveform of the Eddy
current probe signal does have the same general shape as the LVDT signal but
appears to lag the movement of the shaft. There also seems to be significant electrical noise from the Eddy current probe signal. The source of this electrical noise
may be due to either mechanical irregularities on the shaft surface or to metallurgical
impurities in the shaft material. Whatever the exact cause, we can see that the
electrical runout level is fairly high for the unburnished rotor shaft surface.
On the other hand, the capacitive probe (Figure4) tracks the motion of the shaft quite
closely and without the phase lag exhibited by the Eddy current probe. This is due to
the fact that the larger probe tip on the capacitive probe (typically 5 times the surface
area of the 8-mm diameter Eddy current probe tip), sees a larger portion of the shaft
and is able to average out any mechanical surface irregularities. Additionally, the
capacitive probe does not have to be calibrated for the specific shaft material its
measurement technology works equally with all conductive and semi-conductive
targets. Thus, its signal is immune to any metallurgical differences that may exist on
the shaft surface.
The most remarkable aspect of the capacitive proximity probe measurement is that
the probe exhibits a peak-to-peak level of electrical runout of only 0.13 mils (roughly
one-quarter of the Eddy current reading). This would pass runout specifications
(in particular API-670) without the need for diamond-burnishing. Thus, false readings
and their expensive consequences can be avoided.

The Scratch Test

Rotor surface scratches can induce significant error in the Eddy current probe
readings and are highly undesirable for non-contact vibration measurement. During
the course of the test, it was noticed a scratch already existed at 90 from the reference marker on the rotor shaft. The scratch was very shallow and its groove could not
be felt with a fingernail.
It was decided that this scratch would be sufficient to compare the scratch sensitivity
of the two probes. The Eddy current probe picks up this scratch as can be seen from
the roughly 0.20 mil valley in the Eddy current signal at 90 (Figure3). On the other
hand, no significant discrepancy is noticeable for the capacitive probe. This may be
due to the larger tip of the capacitive probe which averages out the anomaly over a
wider area thus reducing the impact of the scratch.
Condition 2 Proximity probes observing the burnished rotor shaft
Diamond-burnishing, a method of smoothing the shaft and work-hardening its
surface, is a required standard procedure whenever Eddy current proximity probes are
being used. Burnishing results in reduced electrical runout levels picked up by the
Eddy current probes. After the shaft was diamond-burnished, the measurements with
each type of proximity probe were repeated.
From Figure 5, it can be seen the electrical runout of the Eddy current probe has been
reduced to 0.27 mils. However, the capacitive probe electrical runout (Figure 6)
remains approximately 0.13 mils. Comparing Figures 5 and 6 with Figures 3 and 4,
diamond burnishing halved the electrical runout level for the Eddy current probe but
had essentially no effect on the capacitive probe. From this, it can be inferred that
diamond-burnishing is not necessary when using the capacitive proximity probe.
This has been corroborated by other field tests conducted by the capacitive probe
manufacturer showing a much cleaner vibration signal for the capacitive probe than
an Eddy current probe despite that the capacitive probe observed an unburnished
surface while the Eddy current probe observed a burnished surface.
Capacitive Probe Burnished Shaft

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

Vibration (mils)

Vibration (mils)

Eddy Current Probe Burnished Shaft

0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

-0.3

Electrical Runout

-0.3

Electrical Runout

-0.4

Eddy Current Probe

-0.4

Capacitive Probe

-0.5

LVDT Probe

-0.5

LVDT Probe

45

90

135
180
225
Angle (degrees)

270

315

Figure 5: Eddy current proximity probe

observing the burnished shaft.

360

45

90

135
180
225
Angle (degrees)

270

315

Figure 6: Capacitive proximity probe

observing the burnished shaft.

360

Interpretation Of Results
It would seem reasonable to infer from the test results that the capacitive proximity
probe is immune to electrical runout. The discrepancy between its readings and
those of the LVDT probe is difficult to explain with the limited equipment available for
the test. However, since the level of electrical runout was the same (0.13mil) both
before and after diamond burnishing, it is reasonable to conclude that when using a
capacitive proximity probe, shaft burnishing is not required.
The scratch test shows the insensitivity of the capacitive proximity probe to scratches
on the shaft surface. For both the machinery manufacturer and the machinery
maintenance staff, this characteristic could lead to significant cost saving by eliminating the need to disassemble a machine to reburnish the rotor shaft whenever a tool
accidentally scratches the rotor surface in the observed path of the proximity probe.
Since the 0.13 mil of electrical runout for the capacitive proximity probe is below the
maximum limits specified in industry standards, for cases where suspected false
vibration readings due to high electrical runout or a magnetized rotor shaft is a
problem, a capacitive probe might be installed to determine the true motion of the
rotor shaft. These cases are currently being investigated by the probe manufacturer
and the results shall be presented in a future paper.
2. CASE STUDY #2 - Installation At Carillon Hydro Station (Qubec), Canada
Description of Test Set-Up
A summary of the test set-up is provided in Figure 7. The Eddy current and capacitive
proximity probes were located at 180 apart at the turbine guide bearing of generator
#13. Thus, both probes should have theoretically given the same AC vibration level
(i.e. the same time-based vibration waveform) but out-of-phase by 180.
VibroSystM and existing Eddy Current (EC) probes located @ 180 apart
PCS-102 probes located just above the guide bearing cover
EC probes located beneath the guide bearing cover
EC Probe

PCS-102
EC Probe

Guide bearing
cover

y
PCS-102

Test Equipment:
Existing MMS rack
SKF Microlog Data Collector/Analyzer Tektronic Oscilloscope TDS-320
Toshiba 2200 Laptop Computer

Figure 7: Test set-up of field comparison performed on Unit #13 at

Hydro-Qubecs Carillon Hydro Station on November 14, 1996

One problem encountered was that the eddy-current probe which had been installed
during unit commissioning was located underneath the turbine bearing cover.
The capacitive probe could not be installed in this exact location without removing the
machine rotor. Thus, the capacitive probe was installed just above the turbine guide
bearing cover. However, it is common knowledge that the rotor shaft of hydro
machines is by conventional design smoothly burnished at the rotor journal
(i.e. where the Eddy current probe was located); thus, if anything, one should expect
the Eddy current probe to offer a cleaner, smoother vibration signal.
The existing Eddy current probe was connected to an existing vibration instrumentation rack. The capacitive probe was interfaced (Figure 8) into the same rack via a
signal conditioning device to provide the standard 200mV/mil sensitivity required by
the rack instrumentation.

PCS-102
Proximity
Probe

Integral
Cable

Tapping
Box

Extension
Cable

LIN-102
Linearization Module
and Enclosure

Existing MMS
Instrumentation
Rack and Modules

Figure 8: Retrofitting the capacitive proximity probe to the existing instrumentation

An oscilloscope was also used to examine the raw waveforms. Additionally, a
portable vibration meter was used to examine the FFT plot of the vibration signals.
Hypothesis
One should expect to see the same waveform from both probes but out of phase by
180. Keeping in mind the greater shaft-smoothness at the location of the Eddy
current probe, the Eddy current probe waveform should exhibit less noise and offer a
purer sine wave.
Summary Of Results
The vibration rack results (indicated under the MMS Rack title in Figure 9) indicate a
large discrepancy (5.9 mils for the eddy-current probe vs. 3.9 mils for the capacitive
probe). This very simple presentation of the vibration data has to be reconciled with
the other data before a conclusion can be drawn.
The portable vibration data collector (indicated under the SKF Microlog title) helps us
to understand the high discrepancy in the results from the vibration rack. We can see
here that the fundamental vibration frequency is very similar for the two probes. The
discrepancy is accounted for from the elevated amplitudes for the Eddy current probe

from the higher order frequencies. This is the main reason explaining the higher peak
vibration level for the Eddy current proximity probe.
MMS Rack

SKF Microlog

Proximity
Probe

Module
Display
(Peak Vibr.)

Amplitude at
Fundamental
Frequency

Sum of
Amplitudes
from 2nd to
20th Order

Sum of
Amplitudes
from 1st to
20th Order

Eddy Current

5.90 0.2

3.704

1.945

5.649

Capacitive

3.94 0.2

3.639

0.497

4.136

(PCS-102)

All measurements given in units of "mils peak"

Figure 9: Summary of test results, Y-position probes

The discrepancy between the two signals is most clearly seen in the comparison of
the two vibration waveforms taken by the oscilloscope (Figures 10 and 11). It is very
important to note that, unfortunately, these two waveforms are not to the same scale so
direct comparison of the amplitudes is impossible. However, the shape of the two
waveforms provides us information which is quite interesting.
Eddy Current Probe Results
Figure 10 is the waveform for the Eddy current probe. The first thing we notice is that
the overall shape of the waveform is very irregular and very far from being a pure sine
wave. While one cannot expect to see in a real world application a pure sine wave, at
least for a large, low-RPM hydro machine, one would find it hard to believe that this
waveform truly reflects the actual motion of the rotor.
Second, it is remarkable the level of noise that exists in the signal from the Eddy
current probe. In the indicated Area #1, we see a lot of noise and signal roughness.
These irregularities may be due to shaft surface roughness to which eddy probes are
highly sensitive. However, the parameter of interest in vibration measurement is
the motion of the rotor shaft and not the surface characteristics of the shaft itself.
This noise can be misleading and direct one to wrongly interpret the waveform.
Third, in the indicated Area #2, there is significant variation in the trough of the
waveform. Eddy current probes, based upon their magnetic operating principle,
are sensitive to irregularities in the metallurgical properties of the target surface.
This seems to be a plausible explanation for the noise from this area. This glitch
could have been caused by a surface scratch as well but since it was not possible to
shut down the machine, the exact nature of this glitch could not be identified.

Overall, the waveform of the Eddy current probe is surprisingly noisy given the wellburnished shaft where the probe was located. Given the large size of the machine
and the low RPM, it is highly unlikely that this waveform reflects the true vibration
behavior of the rotor shaft.

Area #1

Area #2

Figure 10: Plot of the Eddy current

signal on the oscilloscope

Figure 11: Plot of the capacitive

proximity probe signal

Capacitive Probe Results

On the other hand, in Figure 11, we see the waveform of the capacitive proximity
probe. Intuitively, this is the type of motion we would expect from a large, low-RPM
rotating machine. The signal is clear and free of noise. Capacitive probe
performance is not affected by stray magnetic field or residual surface magnetism.
The probe performance is independent of the metallurgical properties of the target
surface. The probes wider-tip surface averages out any surface irregularities to give
a cleaner, almost noise-free signal. The capacitive probe gives a clear picture of the
true motion of the shaft which is the variable of interest, rather than confounding the
result with errors due to sensitivity to the properties of the target surface.
3. Conclusion
Due to the importance of the vibration transducer in acquiring accurate vibration data,
careful study of the environment in which the proximity probe is to be installed would
dictate the selection of the best probe for the application. For environments where
shaft surface roughness, magnetic field, shaft metallurgical irregularities, or shaft
currents may exist, the capacitive proximity probe should be preferred over Eddy
current probes. Considering the capacitive probe's competitive pricing, it should now
be considered a superior replacement for Eddy current probes for almost all noncontact vibration measurement applications.

References
1. Vibration, Axial Position, and Bearing Temperature Monitoring Systems,
API Standard 670, Third Edition, November1993;
American Petroleum Institute, 1993.
2. Stephen J. Chapman,
Electric Machinery Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, 1985.
3. John F. Lyles and G. Bruce Pollock, "Vertical Hydraulic Generators Experience with
Air Gap Monitoring On Large Hydro Generators",
Proceedings of IEEE Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 1992.
4. Condition Monitoring Catalog, SKF USA Inc., 1991.
Biographical Details Of The Authors
Jackson Lin graduated in Mechanical Engineering from Queens University (Kingston,
Canada) in1991. He completed his Masters in Business Administration at McGill
University (Montral, Canada) in 1996. He has also studied for one term at the Institut
Suprieur des Affaires (Jouy-en-Josas, France) in 1995. Currently, Mr. Lin is the
Product Manager for Industrial Applications with VibroSystM.
Marc R. Bissonnette is an Electrical Engineering graduate of the University of
Sherbrooke. Since1987, he has been involved with the on-going development and
marketing of monitoring systems for large rotating machines. Mr. Bissonnette is
presently Sales Manager for VibroSystMs Machine Condition Monitoring Division.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mark DeBlock, Michael Mladjenovic and Hugh Fife of
General Electric Motors and Industrial Systems (Peterborough, Ontario, Canada) for
their generous assistance in the preparation of this paper.

The capacitive proximity probe is manufactured by VibroSystM under the VibraWatch brand name.