See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237236766

Examples of Condition Based Maintenance with the Vibration Management

Enhancement Program

Conference Paper · June 2005

CITATIONS READS

15 1,420

3 authors, including:

Jonathan Allen Keller Paul Grabill

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Sage Machinery Diagnostics
71 PUBLICATIONS   677 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   158 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wind Turbine Drivetrain Reliability Collaborative View project

Next Generation Wind Turbine Drivetrain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathan Allen Keller on 13 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EXAMPLES OF CONDITION BASED MAINTENANCE WITH THE VIBRATION
MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Jonathan A. Keller
jonathan.a.keller@us.army.mil
Robert Branhof
robert.branhof@us.army.mil
US Army RDECOM
Aviation Engineering Directorate
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000
Dennis Dunaway
dennis.dunaway@iac-online.com
Paul Grabill
paul.grabill@iac-online.com
Intelligent Automation Corporation
Huntsville, AL 35806 and Poway, CA 92064

The transition to a condition based maintenance program for Army Aviation requires first and foremost an
accurate assessment of drive train mechanical health. Since the Vibration Management Enhancement
Program was initiated, a large database of helicopter drive train machinery diagnostic condition indicators
has been collected for US Army Apache and Blackhawk aircraft. Periodic investigation of outliers in the
database has led to the discovery of several mechanical faults in gearboxes, bearings and drive shafts.
Successful discovery of these drive train faults has demonstrated the value of having a permanently installed
vibration monitoring system on Army aircraft and provided valuable information towards the goal of a
condition based maintenance program.

Introduction The Vibration Management Enhancement Program

Current Army Aviation maintenance philosophy is (VMEP) is currently in use by the US Army National
to perform maintenance at phased intervals, usually in Guard, US Army Special Operations, and US Army
terms of flight-hour usage. The longer phased TMDE demonstration program. There are over 70
maintenance intervals are supplemented by mandatory aircraft equipped with the VMEP system on the UH60
checks performed on either a flight-hour usage or A/L & MH-60 L/K AH-64 A/D and CH-47D with
calendar basis. In addition, many aircraft dynamic additional installations in progress. The primary
components retirement lives are based on flight-hour function of VMEP is to provide a built-in capability to
usage or calendar time and are conservatively estimated perform required maintenance functions, such as rotor
out of necessity. Thus, components are often replaced smoothing and mandatory vibration checks, during
regardless of their actual condition. These practices, routine flights [1-3]. The vibration limits that have been
although proven effective, cost aircraft availability, time developed for these maintenance activities have the
and money. The Department of Defense (DoD) has benefit of years of experience with the Aviation
mandated a shift from the maintenance philosophy of Vibration Analyzer (AVA). The on-board system
the past to a Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) consists of a Vibration Management Unit (VMU)
philosophy as stated in the Defense Acquisition located in the cockpit, an example is shown in Figure 1,
Guidebook [1]. The goal of CBM is to “perform and a suite of accelerometers and tachometers located in
maintenance only upon evidence of need” and Program the cockpit/cabin area and throughout the drive train.
Managers are required to “optimize operational
readiness through affordable, integrated, embedded
diagnostics…”. The Guidebook defines diagnostics as
“applicable and effective on-board monitoring/recording
devices and software, e.g. built-in test (BIT), that
provide enhanced capability for fault detection and
isolation, thus optimizing the time to repair. Emphasis
must also be on accuracy and minimization of false
alarms”. Clearly, the ability to accurately assess the
condition of the helicopter drive train is directly
applicable to the goal of CBM for Army Aviation. The VMU
most common method of drive train mechanical health
diagnostics is through vibration measurement and
analysis.
Presented at the American Helicopter Society 61st
Annual Forum, Grapevine, Texas, June 1 – 3, 2005.
Copyright © 2005 by the American Helicopter Society
International, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 1. UH-60 VMU Installation (Center Console)
 An additional capability of the VMEP system is
helicopter drive train machinery diagnostics [4-5].
Typically, the condition of these components is
expressed in terms of a single-valued condition
indicator (CI) which can be compared to a set of limits
or “thresholds”. The limits express the severity of a
potential fault and commonly are split into a yellow
“caution” level and a red “exceedance” level. Another
goal of VMEP has been to collect information on
standard, open-literature CIs for a statistically
significant number of aircraft and flight hours to
establish their vibration limits. However, unlike main
rotor smoothing, tail rotor balancing and mandatory
vibration checks the CIs for the majority of the drive
train components do not have well established limits,
simply because they have never before been collected.
Initially, these vibration limits were set conservatively
high to eliminate false alarms. Proper thresholding of
CIs can only be accomplished through many hours of
data collection augmented with special testing of
suspected faults.
Since the VMEP program was initiated in 1999 and
the number of aircraft instrumented with VMEP has
increased, the database of CIs for the drive train
components of Army Apaches and Blackhawks has
grown significantly. The VMEP is structured such that
data acquired in the field is sent via the Internet to a
central website called the Intelligent Machinery
Diagnostic System (iMDS) [5]. One of the advantages
of housing all the data on a central server is that it
facilitates periodic review of the mechanical diagnostic
CIs to investigate outliers and to adjust limits. During
the last two years this process has uncovered several
gearbox and bearing faults. Successful discovery of
these faults has demonstrated the value of having a
permanently installed vibration monitoring system on
Army aircraft and provided valuable information
towards the goal of a condition based maintenance
program. Examples of the faults discovered are
outlined in the following paragraphs.
Examples
Typically, the fault identification process occurs as
follows. The operator (MTP or crew chief) downloads
the data via a serial or USB cable from the Vibration
Management Unit (VMU) on-board the aircraft to a
portable computer with the VMEP software called the
PC Ground-Based System (PC-GBS). The PC-GBS
interprets the processed data and presents the user a
status of the aircraft and its components color-coded
green, yellow or red by comparing the CIs to the
corresponding caution and exceedance values. If a
component is in a caution or exceedance condition and
there is sufficient data about the specific fault,
instructions are provided for corrective action. The data
from the PC-GBS is then set to the iMDS automatically
when the PC-GBS detects an Internet connection or
manually via email, CD or USB drive when an Internet
connection is not present. Thus mechanical diagnostic
data can be monitored almost simultaneously by unit or
Army engineering personnel.
Figure 2. VMEP System Overview
AH-64A Swashplate Bearing Fault
During the South Carolina Army National Guard
(SCARNG) deployment to Kosovo, the main rotor
swashplate component for VMEP-equipped AH-64A
tail number 87-00460 went above the yellow caution
level consistently beginning in November of 2003.
Concurrently, the data were also being monitored by the
VMEP engineering team via the iMDS website. Unit
personnel checked the bearing in accordance with the
Army Technical Manual TM 1-1520-238-23, paragraph
1.137. This particular check is required every 50 flight
hours and involves checking the swashplate for grease
leakage; and after the swashplate accumulates 1750
total flight hours it is also required to disconnect all the
pitch change links from the swashplate and rotate the
outer ring, noting any abnormalities in smoothness of
rotation or axial play. No problems were noted. The
swashplate bearing is fully sealed and is not accessible
while installed. The unit personnel and the engineering
team agreed on a plan to continue to monitor the
component for additional increases while the aircraft
was deployed to Kosovo.
 While the aircraft was still deployed, the data was
investigated further. The component caution was being
driven by a CI associated with the accelerometer bonded
to the underside of the non-rotating main rotor
swashplate. The CI measures the vibration energy
within a frequency band from 100 to 5900 Hz, which
contains the fundamental and several harmonics of the
main rotor swashplate bearing fault frequencies. This
CI is also only calculated while the aircraft is on the
ground in flat-pitch at full rotor speed to eliminate
variations in the CI due to aircraft loading and drive
train torque. The statistical review of the CI for tail 460
compared to the rest of the VMEP-equipped aircraft is
shown in Figure 3. The top plot shows a histogram of
the data by CI level, while the bottom plot shows the
value of the CI for each aircraft by acquisition number.
Note that there were a total of 1147 acquisitions of this
CI (107 for tail 460 and 1040 for the rest of the fleet),
which encompasses a period of approximately 4 years
and 32 aircraft. The majority of the fleet has a CI of
about 1, while the CI for tail 460 was above the caution
limit of 7 for the last 30 acquisitions which covered the
period from November of 2003 to January of 2004. The
aircraft accumulated approximately 250 flight hours
during the period it was monitored with VMEP.
Fleet
Tail 460
a) Swashplate Bearing Energy CI Histogram
Tail 460
Fleet
b) Swashplate Bearing Energy CI across Time
Figure 3. AH-64A Main Rotor Swashplate Energy CI
Although the CI was only slightly above the
caution limit, further investigation of the vibration
spectrum for this accelerometer was cause for greater
concern. The vibration spectra for tail 460 compared to
an average spectra for 7 other “normal” aircraft is
shown in Figure 4. The vertical error bars for the
“normal” aircraft are one standard deviation, σ. Tail
460 has an especially large spectral peak at 1375 with
several sidebands spaced at 100 to 200 Hz, which is in
the range of the fundamental swashplate bearing fault
frequencies. In comparison, the “average” aircraft has
very little vibration magnitude in this region.
5
Tail 460
4
Magnitude (g)
3
2
1
σ
Average
0
0 2000 4000 6000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4. AH64A Main Swashplate Vibration Spectra
Once the aircraft returned to South Carolina from
deployment, raw time-domain vibration data was
collected and saved from the main rotor swashplate
accelerometer from tail 460 and two other aircraft
during ground runs. Somewhat serendipitously, tail 460
was scheduled to be turned-in to Boeing Mesa for
conversion to an AH-64D Longbow. Coordination with
SCARNG and the Apache Program Management Office
enabled the removal of the entire swashplate for
teardown analysis by AED. The swashplate had
accumulated 1961 flight hours at the time of removal,
out of a maximum life of 2250 hours. The swashplate
duplex bearing was removed per the Depot
Maintenance Work Requirement (DMWR) and cut
apart. The upper row was in good condition; however,
the lower row had a broken cage, corrosion and pitting
on both races and blackened grease shown in Figure 5.
a) Broken Cage
b) Corrosion and Pitting on Inner Race
Figure 5. AH64A Swashplate Bearing Teardown
Valuable insight was gained by post-processing of
the raw data using standard bearing analysis techniques
such as the shock-pulse method, cepstral analysis, and
amplitude demodulation [6]. A high-frequency
spectrum for tail 460 and another aircraft is shown in
Figure 6. The spectrum is shown on a logarithmic axis
for clarity. There is greater separation between
vibration levels for high frequencies, from about 10 kHz
to 25 kHz. A summary of five different CIs using the
post-processed data is shown in Figure 7. The results
 10.000 UH-60A Oil Cooler Fan Bearing Faults
One of the functions that VMEP duplicates on
Tail 460
1.000 Blackhawks is the mandatory 100-hour oil cooler fan
Magnitude (g)

vibration check. The oil cooler fan is located just aft of

the main transmission, and is mounted on and driven by
0.100
the tail rotor driveshaft. The fan shaft is supported by
two shielded single-row angular contact ball bearings as
0.010 shown in Figure 8. This particular check, specified in
Normal
Army Technical Manual TM 1-6625-724-13&P,
0.001 involves measuring the vibration on the oil cooler fan
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 housing in the axial and vertical (radial) directions and
Frequency (Hz) calculating the tail rotor driveshaft once-per-revolution
(1R) vibration level and comparing it to a limit of 1.0
Figure 6. High Frequency Spectrum Comparison
inches per second (IPS). This check was originally
are shown as a ratio of the CI calculated for tail 460 to
the average CI for the two other “normal” aircraft. That
is, a CI with a large ratio gives a clearer indication of a
faulted bearing. The five CIs listed in order are:
A. Energy from 12.5 to 17.5 kHz
B. Energy from 0.1 to 5.9 kHz
C. The RMS of the vibration signal
D. The maximum bearing fault from AM
demodulation of a 0.7 to 1.7 kHz band
The CI that results in the greatest separation
between the faulted and normal data is the energy in a
high frequency band (method A), with a ratio of
approximately 15:1. The current CI (method B) has a
ratio of about only 5:1, which is about as much
separation as something as simple as the RMS of the
vibration signal (method C). Surprisingly, amplitude
demodulation, which involves significant computational
resources, only had a ratio of 6.4:1 (method D). At first
glance, Figure 7 might suggest that method A may
result in the earliest indicator of a bearing fault.
However, this data represents a single “snapshot” of the
bearing’s condition when it was already significantly a) UH-60 Oil Cooler
degraded as shown in Figure 5. Post-processing of the
data provided a means of comparison to decide what
additional CIs and corresponding thresholds should be
included for the next release of the Apache VMEP
aircraft diagnostics. Fan Bearings

15

10
Ratio of CI
for Tail 460
to Normal
5

0
A B C D b) Oil Cooler Exploded View
CI Method

Figure 7. CI Method Comparison Figure 8. UH-60 Oil Cooler and Fan Bearings
intended to detect defective tail rotor driveshaft spline
couplings used to drive the oil cooler fan shaft. That
coupling has since been changed to a bolted coupling;
however, the vibration check remains presumably to
detect bent couplings, imbalanced or misaligned shafts,
damaged fan blades or oil cooler fan shaft bearings in a
late stage of degradation.
During the fall of 2003 to spring of 2004, the
VMEP system was installed on 15 UH-60A Blackhawks
at the 1-52nd Aviation Regiment in South Korea. Since
then, VMEP identified 2 aircraft, tail numbers 83-23874
and 83-23900, with oil coolers that were in the yellow
caution condition. Both of the oil coolers in question
passed the mandatory 100-hour vibration check, with
axial vibration levels of approximately 0.25 IPS for the
tail rotor driveshaft 1R. The particular CI that drove the
oil cooler component into the caution level measures the
axial vibration energy within a frequency band from 50
to 950 Hz, which contains the fundamental and several
harmonics of the oil cooler fan bearing fault
frequencies. This CI is also only calculated while the
aircraft is on the ground in flat-pitch at full rotor speed
to eliminate variations in the CI due to aircraft loading
and drive train torque. The statistical review of the CI
for the two oil coolers in question compared to the rest
of the VMEP-equipped aircraft is shown in Figure 9.
The top plot shows a histogram of the data by CI level,
while the bottom plot shows the value of the CI for each
aircraft by acquisition number. Only the last year of
data is shown for clarity since the aircraft in Korea have
had VMEP for a shorter period of time than SCARNG.
Note that there were a total of 967 acquisitions of this
CI (26 acquisition for tails 874 & 900 and 941
acquisitions for the rest of the fleet), which
encompasses a period of approximately 4 years and 33
aircraft. The majority of the fleet has a CI of about 3.5,
while the CI for tails 874 & 900 were above the caution
Fleet Tail 874
& 900
a) Oil Cooler Energy CI Histogram
Tail 874 & 900
Fleet
a) Oil Cooler Energy CI across Time
Figure 9. Oil Cooler Energy CI
limit of 7 for all acquisitions since VMEP was installed
on the aircraft in February of 2004.
Like the Apache main rotor swashplate bearing
incident, the CI was only slightly above the caution
limit but further investigation of the vibration spectrum
was cause for greater concern. The vibration spectrum
for tail 874 compared to an average spectrum for 7 other
“normal” aircraft is shown in Figure 10. The vertical
error bars for the “normal” aircraft are one standard
deviation, σ. The vibration spectrum for tail 874
aircraft contains large peaks at the oil cooler fan bearing
inner and outer race fault frequencies. Note the
“normal” aircraft has very little vibratory magnitude at
the fault frequencies, but does have a few peaks at 69,
197, 348 and 989 Hz. Those peaks are naturally
occurring and correspond exactly to the tail rotor
driveshaft 1R, accessory drive 1R, engine high speed
shaft 1R and fundamental planetary gear mesh.
4 3x Outer
83-23874 2x Outer Race
Average Race
3
Magnitude (g)
+σ
2 Inner
Race
1
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10. Oil Cooler Bearing Vibration Spectrum
During a visit to the 1-52nd unit in Sept 2004 AED
personnel disconnected the oil cooler shaft and rotated it
by hand and felt noticeable “roughness”. Raw vibration
data was also gathered and archived for tail 900 and two
other normal aircraft. Coordination with the unit and
the Blackhawk Program Management Office enabled
the removal of the oil coolers from tails 874 and 900.
The oil cooler assembly from tail 874 was then sent to
Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) where it was
disassembled and inspected by the Analytical
Investigation Division (AID). At the time of removal
the oil cooler has accumulated 1600 flight-hours, while
the maximum service life of the oil cooler fan bearings
is 2000 flight-hours. Compared to the suspect oil
cooler, the rotation of a new oil cooler fan was
noticeably quieter and smoother. The suspect bearings
were then removed from the fan. The bearings and
bearing grease were weighed, and the bearing
dimensions were measured with no anomalies. Both
bearings were then disassembled and visually inspected
and exhibited significant corrosion pitting and spalling,
examples of which are shown in Figure 11. The AID
investigators stated that the fan had likely sat idle for a
significant amount of time with moisture present in the
 12

10 83-23874 Oil Coolers

Replaced
8
83-23900
CI Caution
6
(g)

Fleet Median
2
a) Oil Cooler Fan Bearing Race
0
1/1/04 3/3/04 5/4/04 7/5/04 9/5/04 11/6/04 1/7/05

Figure 12. Oil Cooler Fan Energy CI

AH-64A Nose Gearbox Fault

In the summer of 2003, 5 VMEP systems were
installed on AH-64A Apaches at the Western Area
Army Training Site (WAATS) at Mirana, AZ. During
the standard VMEP installation checkout procedure, tail
Pitting number 90-00315 was noted to have an extremely high
vibration reading for the #2 (right) engine “nose”
gearbox causing the component to be in the red
exceedance condition. The nose gearboxes are shown
in Figure 13 and transfer power from the output shaft of
the engine power turbine into the main transmission.

Nose
Gearboxes
b) Oil Cooler Fan Ball Bearing

Figure 11. Oil Cooler Fan Bearing Teardown

bearings. It was possible to visibly see a pattern on both
races due to corrosion that had developed between the
ball-to-race interfaces. The cages from each bearing
also revealed corrosion pitting. Balls from both
bearings showed evidence of spalling and deformation.
The AID investigators stated that once the corrosion had
developed, spalling then resulted when the fan was
operated which exacerbated the poor condition of the
bearings. It was the opinion of the AID investigators
that it was a wise decision to remove the oil cooler fan
from service.
Once new oil coolers were installed on both
aircraft, new VMEP measurements were acquired to
determine the effect on the vibration and condition
indicators. Figure 12 shows the energy CI before and
after the oil cooler replacement for tails 874 and 900
only. The condition indicator for the original set of oil
coolers was relatively constant for the entire eight
month period they were being monitored by VMEP.
After the oil coolers were replaced, the CIs for each
aircraft immediately returned to the fleet median of 3.
Figure 13. AH-64A Apache and Nose Gearboxes
(Courtesy Boeing)
The vibration spectrum for tail 315 compared to an
average spectrum for 7 other “normal” aircraft is shown
in Figure 14. In this particular case, only a low
frequency spectrum which contains most of the nose
gearbox bearing first-order fault frequencies was
archived. The spectrum for tail 315 appears to be
drastically different than normal and has a very high
noise floor. The largest peaks in the spectrum for tail
315 correspond to the first three harmonics of the
fundamental train frequency (FTF) of 69 Hz and the
second harmonic of the ball spin frequency (BSF) of
892 Hz for the output duplex ball bearing. The only
peaks of note for the average aircraft occur at the engine 35

power turbine shaft speed of 348 Hz and the nose 30

gearbox output shaft speed of 164 Hz. At first, a sensor Gearbox
fault was suspected. However, the VMU performs an 25 Replaced
automatic BIT check on startup which indicated that the
20
sensor was not shorted or open. On-site personnel then CI
(IPS)
checked the sensor installation for looseness or any 15
Exceedance
other abnormalities, but none were found.
10
8
Output Bearing Caution
CFF 5 Fleet Median
7

6 0
7/28/03 10/29/03 1/30/04 5/2/04 8/3/04 11/4/04 2/5/05
Magnitude (g)

Output Bearing
5
2xBSF Figure 16. #2 Nose Gearbox Energy CI
90-00315
4 (Original Gearbox)
The original gearbox was sent to CCAD for
3
overhaul. During the normal teardown process, it was
2 noted that the primary cause of failure was, in fact,
1
spalling of the inner race of the duplex ball bearing
Average
supporting the output bevel gear. Secondary damage
0 then occurred to the other parts of the gearbox. The
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 input gear had a deep groove on the seal surface and
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 14. Original #2 Nose Gearbox Spectra metal breakout on the gear teeth; and the output gear
had stress pitting on the teeth as shown in Figure 17.
During next test flight the crew noted that the #2 The bearing from this particular gearbox was scrapped,
nose gearbox chip detector signaled that the gearbox but an example of the type of damage from a similar
had a chip, which caused the flight crew to land the bearing is shown in . At the time of removal the
aircraft at an off-site location. The chip detector gearbox had accumulated 1450 flight hours.
inspection criteria called for the replacement of the nose
gearbox. After unit personnel replaced the gearbox, the Damaged Wear due to
chip detector light went out and the CI returned to a Teeth Bearing Spinning
normal level. The vibration spectrum immediately after
gearbox replacement is shown in Figure 15. Note the
drastic reduction in vibration. The only remaining
peaks are at the engine power turbine output shaft speed
and the nose gearbox output shaft speed. Since that
time, follow-on vibration acquisitions show that the new
gearbox has been operating normally for over a year as
shown in Figure 16. The condition indicator has had a a) Input Pinion
steady level of about 2, which is actually below the fleet Wear due to
median of 3. Bearing Spinning
8

6
Magnitude (g)

5 Damaged
4 Teeth
3

2
Average 90-00315
1
(New Gearbox)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 b) Output Bevel
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 15. New #2 Nose Gearbox Spectra Figure 17. Nose Gearbox Secondary Gear Damage
 Normal Damaged magnitude above normal. Further inspection of the low
frequency region in Figure 20b reveals large peaks
corresponding to the hanger bearing ball-spin fault
frequency (BSF) of 183 Hz and higher harmonics.

100.00

10.00
a) Normal and Damaged Balls 01-05270

Magnitude (g)
Normal Damaged 1.00

Average
0.10

0.01
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Frequency (Hz)
b) Normal and Damaged Inner Races a) High Frequency (Log Scale)

Figure 18. Example Spalled Duplex Output Bearing 18

16 1x BSF 2x BSF
AH-64D Aft Hanger Bearing Fault 14 3x BSF
In the fall of 2004, 8 VMEP systems were installed
Magnitude (g)

12
on AH-64D Longbow Apaches for the 3-3rd Avn at Ft. 10 01-05270 5x BSF
4x BSF
Bragg, NC. In a situation similar to the nose gearbox
8
fault previously discussed, tail number 01-5270 was
6
noted to have an extremely high vibration for the aft
hanger bearing, an example of which is shown in Figure 4

19, during the standard VMEP installation checkout 2

procedure causing the component to appear in the red
exceedance condition. Once again, unit personnel and
the VMEP installation team checked the sensor
installation and sensor BIT check and found no
abnormalities.
Figure 19. AH64 Aft Hanger Bearing
Concurrently, AED engineering was reviewing the
vibration data. The vibration spectrum for tail 01-05270
compared to the average spectrum for the 7 “normal” 3-
3rd AH-64D aircraft is shown in Figure 20. The high
frequency spectrum in Figure 20a shows that the
vibration levels for tail 5270 are roughly 2 orders of
Average
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)
b) Low Frequency (Linear Scale)
Figure 20. Hanger Bearing Vibration Spectra
After inspection of the vibration measurements, it
was then recommended to the unit perform the
driveshaft and hanger bearing inspection in accordance
with Army Technical Manual TM 1-1520-238-23,
paragraph 6.1. Included in this check is a visual
inspection for damage or looseness in the mounts,
driveshaft and bearing support. No obvious damage
was found. Additionally, the hanger bearing is also
inspected for damage, grease leakage or roughness of
rotation. Here, it was noted that the hanger bearing
rotation was rough. No roughness is allowed by the
TM, which called for removal of the bearing. A new
hanger bearing was installed on the aircraft and another
set of vibration measurements were acquired during a
ground run. The results, shown in Figure 21,
demonstrate the new hanger bearing actually has
slightly lower vibration levels than the other 3-3rd AH-
64D Apaches. The drive shaft component returned to a
green condition and the aircraft was released for flight.
 100.000
10.000 Original Hanger Bearing
Magnitude (g)
1.000
Average
0.100
0.010
New Hanger Bearing
0.001
0 5000 10000 15000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 21. Hanger Bearing Replacement (Log Scale)
Once the original hanger bearing had been
removed, the hanger bearing nutation check was
performed. This particular check involves measuring
the torque required to move (nutate) the ball bearing
inside the spherical bearing housing; that is, it is a
measure of whether the ball bearing can properly self-
align to account for flexure of the tail rotor driveshaft.
The check has a lower torque limit (i.e. spherical
bearing is too loose) and an upper limit (i.e. spherical
bearing is too tight). The hanger bearing was over the
upper torque limit by a factor of 2 to 3 times normal.
This check, although useful and quantitative, is not a
measure of the health of the actual ball bearing. The
only measure of the ball bearing health is the roughness
check mentioned earlier, which is entirely qualitative.
Upon failing both the roughness and nutation checks, a
product quality deficiency report was initiated and the
bearing was sent to CCAD-AID for teardown and
analysis. At the time of removal, the bearing had
accumulated only 346 flight hours out of a maximum of
2000 flight hours.
When the bearing was disassembled, it was noted
that the grease adjacent to the ball bearing retainers
appeared dark and over heated and had a high presence
of dirt. The bearing was then cut apart and the AID
investigators discovered that the failure was initiated by
a single corroded ball bearing failed which was then
reduced in size due to spalling. The spalled ball then
caused secondary damage to the other balls and
raceways.
UH-60 Forward Drive Shaft Imbalance
Previous examples demonstrate the ability of
VMEP to monitor critical gearboxes and bearings.
Another less glamorous function of VMEP, although no
less important, is routine monitoring of drive shafts for
imbalance and/or misalignment. The VMEP system has
automated diagnostics for the Blackhawk engine high
speed shaft balancing, but is also capable of balancing
other drive shafts via interpretation of the vibration data.
After installation of the VMEP system at 1-52nd
Avn in South Korea, the tail rotor driveshaft component
was in the red exceedance condition for tail 83-23845.
Further inspection showed the exceedance was being
driven by a high vibration at the tail rotor drive shaft 1R
speed measured at forward viscous bearing sensor. A
quick comparison of tail 845 versus the rest of 1-52nd
Blackhawks in Figure 22 shows the 1R vibration was 7
times above normal.
3
83-23845
20000 25000
Exceedance
2
CI (IPS)
Caution
1
Fleet
Median
0
Aircraft
Figure 22. Driveshaft Vibration by Aircraft
During a routine visit to the 1-52nd unit in Sept
2004 AED personnel further investigated the situation.
The Blackhawk tail rotor driveshaft is supported by four
viscous hanger bearings – one just behind the oil cooler,
and then one each at the forward, middle, and aft
sections of the driveshaft. A quick check of each
bearing was made and no damage, looseness or
roughness was perceived. So it was suspected that an
imbalanced driveshaft was the cause of the situation.
By comparing the vibration levels at each station it was
possible to pinpoint the problem driveshaft as shown in
Figure 23. The viscous bearings at the oil cooler and aft
viscous bearings were normal; however the mid viscous
bearing was also in a yellow caution condition.
Therefore, it was likely that the driveshaft between the
forward and mid viscous bearings was imbalanced. In
3
2
CI (IPS)
1
0
Oil Cooler Fwd VB Mid VB Aft VB
VB
Figure 23. Drive Shaft Vibration by Location
the case of the Blackhawk tail rotor driveshaft, the
easiest method to cure the problem is to re-index the
shaft (disconnect two shaft sections and rotate by one
bolt hole pattern, equivalent to 120° rotation). AED and
unit maintenance personnel agreed that the driveshaft at
the forward viscous bearing location be re-indexed. A
ground-run was completed, and an additional vibration
survey was acquired. The results indicated that the
drive shaft 1R vibration dropped to a high yellow level.
Unit maintenance personnel re-indexed the drive shaft
again, which resulted in almost no change in the tail
rotor drive shaft 1R vibration. The unit then decided to
replace the driveshaft with a spare one they had in
stock. The subsequent vibration data showed that the
shaft 1R vibration dropped to a normal green level as
shown in Figure 24.
4 Since the Vibration Management Enhancement
83-23845
3 helicopter drive train machinery diagnostic condition
CI (IPS)
Exceedance
2 automatic data transfer tools via the Internet and allows
Driveshaft
Re-indexed
Caution
1 Driveshaft
Fleet Median Replaced
0 and include a swashplate bearing, hanger bearing,
3/1/04 5/2/04 7/3/04 9/3/04
Figure 24. Tail Rotor Driveshaft 1R CI
AH-64A Bent Tail Rotor Driveshaft
Another driveshaft fault event occurred at the
WAATS for AH-64A tail 90-00417 during fall/summer
of 2004. The aircrew noted that the tail rotor driveshaft
component was in the yellow caution condition since
the VMEP system had been installed on their aircraft.
Further inspection of the caution condition by unit
personnel showed the tail rotor driveshaft 1R vibration
level measured at the forward hanger bearing was out-of
balance.
During the aircraft phase conducted in the summer
of 2004, unit personnel removed and inspected the tail
rotor driveshaft just aft of the forward hanger bearing.
It was determined that the driveshaft was bent by rolling
the drive shaft on a flat table. The drive shaft was
turned into the supply system, and a new one was
installed on the aircraft. The resulting drive shaft
vibration dropped from 1.80 IPS to 0.23 IPS, which is
actually below the fleet median of 0.6 IPS as shown in
Figure 25. Since the post-phase vibration check, the
vibration level has actually gone down slightly further
to 0.1 IPS.
2
90-00417
Caution
1.5
CI (IPS)
1 Driveshaft Replaced
during Phase
0.5 Fleet Median Post-Phase Check
0
5/1/04 7/2/04 9/2/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 3/7/05
Figure 25. Tail Rotor Driveshaft 1R CI
Conclusions
Program was initiated on selected US Army and Army
National Guard aircraft in 1999, a large database of
indicators has been compiled. Analysis of the drive
train vibration data has been facilitated through use of
real-time troubleshooting between engineers and field
units. In the past two years, periodic investigation of
outliers has uncovered several mechanical faults in
gearboxes, bearings, and drive shafts. The faults
discovered were often on critical areas of the drive train
11/4/04 engine nose gearbox, oil cooler fan bearing and tail
rotor drive shafts. In some examples, the components in
question passed the current Army Technical Manual
field checks, which often rely on subjective measures.
In some cases, unit personnel conducted maintenance
and based their decisions solely on their interpretation
of the vibration data presented to them in the ground
software. In other cases, coordination between
contractors, government engineers and the Army unit
facilitated the correlation of vibration measurements
both before and after part removal with the teardown
analysis of the part. Through these efforts, the
machinery diagnostic algorithms and resulting condition
indicators can be improved for earlier and/or more
definitive detection of future faults; and the thresholds
to which the condition indicators are compared can be
adjusted in an iterative process. Successful discovery of
these drive train faults has demonstrated the value of
having a permanently installed vibration monitoring
system on Army aircraft and provided valuable
information towards the goal of transitioning to a
condition based maintenance program.
 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank unit personnel at
each aviation unit involved: SCARNG, 1-52nd Avn, 3-
3rd Avn, and WAATS. The authors would also like to
thank CCAD-AID for teardown analysis photographs
and reports and the University of South Carolina for
correlation of aircraft usage data.

References
1. Defense Acquisition Guidebook,
http://akss.dau.mil/dag/Guidebook/IG_c5.2.1.2.asp,
Dec. 2004.
2. Wroblewski, D., Branhof. R., and Cook. T.,
“Neural Networks for Smoothing of Helicopter
Rotors,” American Helicopter Society 57th Annual
Forum, Washington, D.C., May 2001.
3. Grabill, P., Brotherton, T., Branhof, R., Berry, J.,
and Grant, L., “Rotor Smoothing and Vibration
Monitoring Results for the US Army VMEP,”
American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum,
Phoenix, AZ, May 2003.
4. Grabill, P., Berry, J., Grant, L., and Porter, J.,
“Automated Helicopter Vibration Diagnostics for
the US Army and National Guard,” American
Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum,
Washington, D.C., May 2001.
5. Grabill, P., Brotherton, T., Berry, J., and Grant, L.,
“The US Army and National Guard Vibration
Management Enhancement Program (VMEP)”
Data Analysis and Statistical Results,” American
Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum, Montreal,
Canada, June 2002.
6. Grabill, P., and Keller, J.A., “Vibration Monitoring
Techniques Investigated for the Monitoring of a
CH-47D Swashplate Bearing,” American
Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum, Phoenix,
AZ, May 2003.

View publication stats