Dane Rape

XYZ CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Executive Summary: The design presented in this report is a two-shaft, three-belt transmission
for the proposed airboat. With weight, cost, and quality in mind; a feasible power transmission
was devised. After iterating through many designs, the one presented here is summarized as
follows: The drive shaft is to be carried on two deep grove ball bearings and is to carry a 15.75
three grove drive sheave. The Prop shaft is to be carried by one angular contact bearing (for
thrust load) and one deep groove ball bearing. It is to carry a 5.95 three grove driven sheave.
B60 belts are to be used (a more complete list of the components is provided in the design
summary). Of course, the design exceeds all provided specifications. Importantly, it exceeds all
safety specifications. Cost and quality were considered in equal parts with each decision. An indepth overview of the design is given in the design summary section of this report.
Problem Statement: Design a power transmission for a prototype airboat. Safety, cost, and
weight consciousness are of paramount importance.
Problem Solution
(1) Belt Selection: Using the nominal horsepower requirement specified by the manufacturer
(9.4 ft-lbf @ 2400 rpm), I chose to use three B section belts. While the design computer
program was initially iterated with two arbitrary sheave diameters which satisfied the
speed ratio requirement, it was eventually decided to use a 15.75 and 5.75 pair of three
grove sheaves. This conclusion was reached after considering a plethora of options. An
abbreviated table of options and cost is detailed below.

Dane Rape
XYZ CONSULTING ENGINEERS

The sheave diameters along with the engine location specified the designs 61.8 pitch
length. Assumptions: Effective Coefficient of friction used was provided by Gates Rubber
Company ( f = 0.5123), Design Factor (nd = 2.0), Light shock (ks = 1.1)
(2) Material Selection: While presented as an option to the manufacturer in the design
summary, 316 SS is recommended. Assumptions: Corrosive Environment (salt water)
(3) Drive Shaft Design: Beginning with the free body diagram of the shaft of variable
dimensions, a static analysis is performed. The shaft is composed of two bearing surfaces
and a sheave surface. It has three snap ring grooves and two keyways. A high cycle
fatigue analysis is performed as well as a check for first cycle yield at several potentially
critical shaft locations (please see appendix for specifics). The shaft is then tested for
deflection and slope. Lastly, the first critical speed of the shaft was considered. These
symbolic results are then programmed. The resulting iterative design is shown in detail as
attached drawing. Assumptions: Weight of sheave may not be neglected (it weighs
41.5lbf), Bearings are modeled as simple supports, Moment is completely reversed and
Torque is modeled as steady, Conservatively use the maximum bending moment (occurs
at sheave face center) value in the analysis of the nearby sheave snap ring groove, Marin
factor kd is sufficiently close to one to set it equal to one, Beam deflection/slope equations
are used shaft design with average diameter.
(4) Driven Shaft Design: Similar to drive shaft design with a few notable differences (for
detail, please see appendices). The shaft is to be carried by one angular contact bearing
(engine side, shaft carries a thrust load) and one deep grove ball bearing. Also, weight of
the attached propeller must be considered here. Following the same analysis outlined
above, the results are programmed so that the design variables may be iterated. The result
of the iterative design process is attached as a detailed drawing. Assumptions: Same as
assumptions for Drive Shaft design.

Dane Rape
XYZ CONSULTING ENGINEERS

(5) Bearing Selection: The required reliability of each bearing was determined. Then, using
the results above, particularly the results from the static analysis of the free body
diagrams of the shafts; the radial loads taken by the deep groove bearings were used with
the appropriate design equations of the appendices to write the required catalog ratings
into the program. For the angular contact bearing, the thrust and radial loads were
combined via the equivalent radial load equation in the program so output of the
appropriate minimum catalog rating was realized. The selections are outlined in the
summary. Note that wide bearings were selected where possible to improve stability.
Assumptions: Each of the bearings are of the same individually reliability for each shaft,
Bearing pairs were designed for 96% overall reliability and at least one-hundred-million
revolutions.
(6) Key Design: Keys for each of the shafts were designed with intent to make at least one
relatively weak relative to the other components in the drive system for predictable
failure (fatigue safety factor for the key attaching the engine couple to the drive shaft is
nfs=2.13). Some keys were not because of the desire for longer keys for increased
stability. More concern would be given if the drivetrain was composed of gears as
opposed to belts. Keys were examined via high cycle fatigue analysis and static yield
analysis in much the same way as the shafts. Assumptions: I chose to model the direct
shear present in the key as a repeated load because I assumed the key to be most
susceptible to starting and stopping the drive system.
(7) Engine Choice: Engine chosen from manufacturer supplied list. Assumptions: A belt
drive efficiency is assumed conservatively to be 90%, engines rated powers were
assumed to be actual output powers
(8) Location of Components: Prop centerline remains 18 below top of cage. Housing for
prop side, driven shaft bearing shall place this bearing at the back side of the cage so that

Dane Rape
XYZ CONSULTING ENGINEERS

the shank with keyway to couple to prop extends sufficiently outside the cage. Motor
should be placed with H = (23.10) and the rear of the motor shall be located ~33.5 from
front of cage (Sheave alignment critical).
Design Summary
-Belts: 3x Gates B60, responsibility of manufacturer to provide initial tension of ~26 lbf.
-Shafts: Drawings attached, recommend 316SS, Machined Surfaces
-Keys: Stock and dimensions called on drawings
-Bearings: (3x) Timken W204KLL, (1) Timken 7204WN, Fits specified inherently by
drawing dimensioning of shafts (Follows recommendation from Timken Engineering Ma.)
-Sheaves: (1) Gates 7851-3052, (1) Gates 7831-3150
-Snap Rings: (4x) Arcon 1400-78 [inner bearing rings], (2x) N1300-187 [outer bearing
rings], (2x) Arcon 1400-102 [sheave rings], note: allow one side of each shaft to float in
your design of an appropriate housing (thermal expansion). Constrain the engine side of
both shafts.
-Engine- 5hp unit
Conclusions/Recommendations: Strongly recommend 316SS for the shafts.