Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
276-284
Introduction
T H E R E ARE a number of steps which must be taken to achieve
an acceptable shaft alignment. As discussed in T&R Report R-25
[1],2 a variety of procedures exists to achieve these goals. All of
t h e m include the basic steps of (i) establishing the desired
alignment, (ii) installing the shaft, and (iii) checking the alignm e n t in some fashion. The strain-gage method of alignment
applies only to the final phase of this operation and it can be used
to replace, for example, the weighing of bearing reactions. The
strain-gage procedure has been known and used for a number of
years [1-4]. During this time, many practical suggestions about
its proper application have been made and these will not be repeated here. Direct information verifying the accuracy of this
procedure and describing its proper application has been
lacking.
The strain-gage procedure has a number of advantages that
make it an attractive alternative to the more commonly used
alignment-check procedures. Once the gages are installed, both
horizontal and vertical alignment can be checked simultaneously
and a complete set of strain readings can be taken in less than an
hour. The ease with which the readings may be taken (that is, no
support structure as with the jacking technique) alloW~ for
measurements to be taken at sea under ballast and full-load
conditions and periodically during the ship's life to insure that
safe bearing and gear operating conditions are maintained. The
procedure may be used to check the alignment after repairs or
prior to the delivery of a new ship. Even reactions of bearings
inaccessible for jacking can be determined accurately.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the details of the
procedure, as understood by the authors, so that anyone with a
good engineering background wishing to use the technique may
be able to do so. A discussion is included to describe how strain
gages are used to measure moments in shafts and to show the
various methods available. A procedure is presented which allows
an engineer to optimize the location of strain gages on a given
shaft system and estimate maximum errors in the resulting
bearing reactions. Results of application experience also are ineluded where both strain gages and jacking were used to determine bearing reactions. It is hoped that this information will aid
in both the use and acceptance of the strain-gage procedure.
Shaft m o m e n t m e a s u r e m e n t p r o c e d u r e s
For shaft alignment, the primary strains are those induced by
1 Sun Ship, Inc., Chester, Pennsylvania. Mr. Forrest is now with E. I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Circleville, Ohio.
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the March 21, 1980 meeting of the Philadelphia Section
of THE SOCIETY OF NAVALARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.
276
(1)
(2)
which holds for the uniaxial stress condition on the shaft surface.
It should be noted that the magnitude of the average strain (~ in
Fig. 4) is not important since only the amplitude is needed to
determine the moment. From these relationships the vertical and
horizontal moments can be written as
M y = eaE___IIcos~
(3)
M h = e_aE____IIsinX
(4)
The reason for using this procedure is that a number of readings are incorporated in the determination of both the larger
vertical and smaller horizontal moments. In this manner the error
in the horizontal moment should be reduced. An alternative
procedure would be to use the 12 and 6 o'clock readings to produce the strain amplitude (Ca) and vertical moment. This would
certainly be adequate when no significant horizontal moment
(misalignment) exists.
The more complex strain-gage arrangements pictured in Figs.
2 and 3 employ exactly the same procedure as discussed for the
single-gage method but lead to an improved level of accuracy.
These arrangements produce strain indications two and four
times larger, respectively, than the single gage strain reading and
they are inherently temperature-compensated. Increasing the
strain readings by these factors tends to improve the strain resolution available from standard instrumentation by a similar
factor. To simplify the installation for the four-gage method,
double gages are available from suppliers.
0025-3316/81/1803-0276500.43/0
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
TOP
R
Fig. 1
Single-gage configurations
- ' ~ COMPRESSION
TOP
Fig. 4
BOTTOM
Fig. 2
Two-gage configuration
TOP
1~ % ~ ' N 2
BOTTOM
Fig. 3
(5)
Four-gage configuration
as
EII
c [
Accuracy of procedure
ea (1 - v)
1
-I- 0.005 ~a 4- - 2
CF
m = - - . (1 - cos2c~) -
A n u m b e r of p a r a m e t e r s a f f e c t t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e m o m e n t
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . T h e s e include:
1. Gage misalignment--The m i s a l i g n m e n t error in a u n i a x i a l
s t r e s s field [5] d e p e n d s on t h e a m o u n t w h i c h t h e gage is a l i g n e d
off t h e axial direction, a n d it can b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as (1 - cos2c~).
If a good p r o c e d u r e is e m p l o y e d , t h i s e r r o r c a n be r e d u c e d to a
negligible a m o u n t (see A p p e n d i x 1).
X 10 -6 4- 0.02ea~
(6)
w h e r e s e c o n d - o r d e r effects h a v e b e e n d r o p p e d . N o t e t h a t t h e
effect of t h e s t r a i n i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e t o r q u e r e q u i r e d to r o t a t e
t h e s h a f t can b e e l i m i n a t e d b y t a k i n g r e a d i n g s over s e v e r a l revo l u t i o n s w i t h p a u s e s or c h a n g e s in d i r e c t i o n or b o t h .
Nomenclature
b = dimension in shaft free bodies
c = shaft radius
CF = bridge/gage circuit factor
E = elastic modulus
I = shaft moments of inertia
L = dimension in shaft free bodies
M = bending moment in shaft
m = error in shaft bending moment
R = bearing reaction
r = error in hearing reaction
JULY 1981
V=
v=
X=
c =
fl =
6=
=
=
#=
shear in shaft
error in shaft shear
shaft axial dimension
gage misalignment angle
moment-influence coefficient
bearing displacement from straight line
strain
'ii~
error in strain
angle defining location of gages relative
to vertical
Subscripts
a
h
t
J
sl
v
=
=
=
=
=
=
amplitude
horizontal
strain-gage location indicator
bearing location indicator
straight-line condition
vertical
277
GEAR
PROP.
Mc
Vc
Mb
Vb
Ma
Va
tR5
Fig. 5
Hc
Vc
Mb Vb
Y_L
t
R5
t
R4
Fig. 6
EI
m = +0.025 M 4- c ~
R3
R2
RI
(7)
(8)
flij = ~ M i _ A M i
(9)
The measured moments (Mi) would then be inserted into equation (8) and the bearing elevations determined from a solution
to N-2 simultaneous equations.
This procedure is direct and easily automated but offers little
insight as to the proper location of strain-gage stations on a
particular shaft system. A quick look might lead one to think that
the engineer has a great freedom of choice in locating gage sites,
even though intuitively spreading them out over the shaft system
seems appropriate.
Ma Va
Vd
Hc
Vc
Hb
Vb
_L_k_
Ha
_/x_
Va
'
-5-
R1
Fig. 7
i.~
I~V+v
R+r
r~-
"X"
R2 + r 2
'l]v+v
.+m
f R] + r I
i.--
c---~i.~-b
~
i"
M+m
~R 3 + r3
L
t R2+r2
if
iIV+v
~Rl+rl
:]
M+m
"[ J V+v~
H+nl
I
J
R+r
+v
~,
I
"t
I
M+m
li
Fig. 8
.A
t R2+r2
"[ R1+rl
"I
using strain gages are relatively simple, but to make them useful
some method must be found to establish the bearing reaction or
elevation error that will result for a particular system. To accomplish this task, the error in the calculated bearing reaction
or shear or both can be estimated by assuming each moment (M)
is in error by some small amount (m). Where appropriate, the
shear (V) also is considered as having an error (v) so that the error
transmitted to adjacent free bodies via the shear can be estimated. These shears and moments are inserted into the static
relationships required to calculate the unknown bearing reactions
and shears, and the resulting errors for each free-body type are
algebraically determined. As previously discussed, the errors
calculated using the free-body approach apply to the influence
coefficient method as well as to any other procedure for determining shaft alignment from a series of measured moments.
Consequently, error bounds predicted by this method hold for
any calculational procedure used to determine shaft alignment
from strain-gage measurements.
Figure 8 shows the six shaft free bodies needed to consider
shaft alignments. The lineshaft-bearing free body [Fig. 8(d)] has
measured moments M1 and M2 and requires one known shear
279
Table 1
Reaction Error(s)
Shear Error(s)
rn
rn
r - b
m+v(b+c)
rl -
v = ~-
maximize b
(requires known v)
minimize b
(requires known v)
minimize b
m+vb
r2-
r2 = m + rl(c + d) d+ v(d + c + b)
Recommendations
rlc + m +
r3 =
v(b + c)
vl - m l + m2 +b v2(L - b)
maximize b
none
vl -
ml + rn2
L
- v2
maximize L
m+vd
rl c+b
none
r2 =
minimize d
m+v(b+c+d)
b+c
( R + r)b
Jr ~ L x#(x)dx
Jo
(10)
or
M 1 - M 2 - V2L + ~_~ L x # ( x ) d x
(R + r) =
m l Jr rn2 + u2L
b
(11)
where the signs on the various error components have been adjusted to indicate the worst case. Subtracting the exact value of
R from equation (11) leads to a reaction error defined by
r =
m l Jr m2 Jr v2L
(12)
f:
~(x)dx
(13)
or
V1 + Vl = V2 + R -
# ( x ) d x + v2 + r
(14)
r n 2 jbr m l
(15)
This shows that the transmitted error (vl) is at least twice the
incoming error (v2) and that maximizing b / L within the physical
limits of the system tends to minimize this error. The importance
of minimizing transmitted error on achieving good strain-gage
alignment results subsequently will be emphasized by actual
shipboard experience. It should be remembered that beam theory
does not fully apply at the support points and strain-gage stations
should be located approximately one shaft diameter from any
support point [6] and at least one total flange width from the fillet
of flanges [6,7].
280
The errors introduced in the reactions and shears for all of the
six basic free bodies required to evaluate a shaft system are included in Table 1. Also included in this table are recommendations for locating strain gages based on minimizing the introduced
errors; these were obtained from the error relationships by inspection.
After choosing a series of these free-body sections to approximate a particular shaft system, the magnitude of the error of
each bearing reaction can be determined in terms of the errors
in each measured moment. These errors can be quantified by
inserting the expected error bound on moment given in equation
(7).
Shipboard examples
To establish the credibility of the strain-gage alignment procedure, bearing reactions have been obtained for two ships using
both the strain-gage alignment procedure and the commonly used
jacking method. The first example represents the initial experience at Sun Ship and was done without the benefit of a preliminary error analysis to establish an acceptable gage siting plan.
The ships considered include a tanker and a containership, b u t
both of them have similar shafting arrangements as shown in
Figs. 9 and 10.
Initial experience
The strain-gage locations chosen for the initial test of the
strain-gage alignment procedure also are shown in Fig. 9. Ease
of access was used as the primary consideration for choosing these
locations since the error-bound procedure had not been developed. All gage installations employed the two-gage method (see
Fig. 2) and 0.5-in.-long (12.7 mm) gages. Both gage readings and
jacking data were taken shortly after the dock trial when the
system was hot. Gage data were taken by rotating the shaft several times on the jacking gear and noting the several gage readings
every 90 deg. The resulting strain-determined bearing reactions
are shown compared with the measured bearing reactions in
Table 2, where differences were generally less than 5 percent, with
the exception of the aft gear bearing, which shows a difference
of 25.3 percent.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
.4"
F
L
e
2
702"
~-- 494"
.......
Ws
]--]
2 4 8 ~
889"
1.5'*
Ws
,lv?-(vl
Re
Fig. 9
lv)-(vl,
Rd
ac
Rb
Ra
Sketch of shafting arrangement and strain-gage sites for the initial experience case--tanker
3
i~ 779"
~-- 1080.6"
472.7" 377.6"I~211.9"
~ L 732.75"
L - vIL
t~e
Ib
tRd
L 401.6"
c
L 77.9"L
I
2
13.5"
Rc
Rb
Ra
M
Fig. 10
Lvllvl,
--containership
JULY 1981
1
t
Rb
Ra
Recent experience
In light of the difficulties encountered with the initial test of
the strain-gage alignment system, recent applications have included a preliminary error-bound analysis to aid in the proper
siting of the strain gages. Figure 10 shows a shafting arrangement
for which this procedure was used. This system has five bearings
and requires three gage installations, and Locations 1, 2, and 3
were selected based on recommendations in Table 1 and accesTable 2
(1)
Bearing
a.
b.
c.
d,
e,
Forward gear
Aft gear
Forward line
Aft line
Stern tube
(2)
(3)
40 642
25 767
53 117
17 744
160 261
3.2
25.3
4.8
4.6
- --
Table 3
Gage
Location
Moment
Magnitude,
in.-kips
Diameter,
in.
m,
in.-kips
v,
lb
1
2
3
280
490
580
23.875
23.875
31.25
26.7
31.95
58.7
2176
866
314
Bearing
e.
d.
c.
b.
a.
Stern tube
Aft line
Forward line
Aft gear
Forward gear
Design
Reaction
(R), lb at
Temperature
r,
lb
162 060
13 010
55 363
33 486
33 502
314
1180
3042
8732
6556
Error
Bound
r/R, %
0.2
9.1
5.5
26.1
19.6
1 lb = 0.45 kg.
1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Table 4
Gage
Location
Shaft
Diameter,
in.
Expected
Moment,
in.-kips
m, in.-kips
v, lb
1
lb
2
3
23.25
23.5
23.25
23.25
2560
600
370
1100
82.2
33.8
27.5
45.7
693 (699)
(699)
308
152
Bearing No.
e.
d.
c.
b.
a.
Stern tube
Aft line
Forward line
Aft gear
Forward gear
Reaction, lb
r/R, %
125 091
45 382
45 338
41 083
40 878
152
460
1001
3409 (3427)
2716 (2729)
0.1
1.0
2.2
8.3 (8.3)
6.6 (6.7)
1 lb = 0.45.
1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Numbers in parenthesis represent values calculated using a free section
defined by Gage Locations 1 and lb.
sibility. An e r r o r - b o u n d analysis was p e r f o r m e d for this arr a n g e m e n t and the results are included as T a b l e 4, where error
limits at the gear are approximately 8 percent. Even though this
was not considered excessive, it was decided to add a free section
[see Figure 8(e)] aft of the thrust bearing, and the r e d u n d a n t gage
location, l b , was included. E r r o r - b o u n d calculations for t h e gear
reactions d e t e r m i n e d using this added free section are given in
T a b l e 4 (enclosed in parentheses). N o t e t h a t in this case no imp r o v e m e n t in the error b o u n d was achieved by adding the free
section, b u t the alternative m e t h o d of calculating the gear reactions is used to ensure no faulty gages are in the system.
T h e results of t h e jacking and strain-gage procedure for this
case are given in Table 5. T o determine these values, strain-gage
and jacking d a t a were collected at an a m b i e n t (cold) c o n d i t i o n
Table 5
Conclusions
T h e strain-gage m e t h o d of d e t e r m i n i n g shaft a l i g n m e n t is an
acceptable t e c h n i q u e and is capable of establishing bearing reactions a b o u t as closely as the jacking method. T h e m o s t imp o r t a n t advantage it has is the speed with which an a l i g n m e n t
check may be made, especially after the gages have been installed.
In a d d i t i o n to that, loads on inaccessible bearings can often be
accurately d e t e r m i n e d .
T h e proper siting of gages on the shaft is crucial to both ensuring accuracy and to making the resulting system statically
d e t e r m i n a t e . Excessive errors can result if gages are not sited so
as to m i n i m i z e t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n of error from one free b o d y to
the n e x t via the discrepancies in calculated shear at the gage locations. I m p r o p e r siting can also lead to a system of free bodies
t h a t are not statically d e t e r m i n a t e . A well-posed a r r a n g e m e n t
is ensured by dividing the shaft into free bodies at the gage locations, identifying fully d e t e r m i n a t e sections and d e t e r m i n i n g
t h a t a sequence of calculations exists to d e t e r m i n e u n k n o w n
shears and bearing reactions. If all of the reactions can be found,
the system has been r e n d e r e d fully d e t e r m i n a t e .
T h e free-body a p p r o a c h of siting the strain gages, evaluating
errors and calculating reactions provides both physical insight
and more flexibility t h a n more sophisticated procedures (that
is, the m o m e n t - i n f l u e n c e e q u a t i o n approach). Once the system
is t r a n s f o r m e d into a series of m o m e n t - i n f l u e n c e equations, all
geometry affects are lost in a series of constants and the resulting
Comparison of strain gage and jacking method bearing reactions for recent experience
Bearing
Jacked Cold
4/22/80,
lb
a Forward gear
b. Aft gear
c. Forward line
d. Aft line
e. Stern tube
48 400
32 400
56 400
32 200
""
47 290
30 123
56 708
35 176
218 535
Full Model
% difference
2.3 '
7.0
0.5
9.2
.
.
46 553
31 214
. . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
3.8
3.7
.
.
1 lb = 0.45 kg.
282
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
effect on accuracy of relocating a gage cannot be readily determined. Using the free-body approach, geometry effects can be
determined simply by inspecting the various equations of static
equilibrium employed. The free-body approach also provides a
means of using redundant gage locations to improve accuracy as
illustrated by the use of the free section in the recent experience
example. Furthermore, reactions can be calculated as the readings are being taken by evaluating deadweight effects and reducing the results to several simple relationships for each free
body. These may be evaluated using a hand-held calculator on
the ship (see Appendix 2).
Level
C~ OF SHAFT
\
Fig. 11
Recommendations
A strain-gage alignment plan should be conceived using the
free-body approach as described. This allows for an evaluation
of errors and insures t h a t a fully determinate system is defined.
Once the data are collected, any accurate calculation method may
be used to transform the measured moments into bearing reactions or elevations.
Good instrumentation should be employed to determine
bending moments in the shaft. Typical gage site plans require
strain accuracies on the order of :El pin. per inch or better. Even
with the more complex bridge circuits (see Figs. 1-3), this is near
the limit of currently available instrumentation.
Certainly, one of the potential advantages to the strain-gage
procedure is that it may be capable of determining shaft alignment during operation. It should be emphasized that the static
bending strains are relatively low when compared with the other
operating strains (that is, torsion and thrust) and t h a t these
strains are unsteady because of the propeller blade-wake interaction. A reliable means must be established to separate these
signals and the procedure must be checked, preferably by an alternate method.
~']
Definition of gage
Fig. 12
misalignment angle
(1 - v)
References
1 SNAME Technical and Research Report R-25, 1978.
2 Grant, Robert B., "Shaft Alignment Methods with Strain Gages
and Load Cells," MARINETECHNOLOGY,Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1980, pp.
8-15.
3 Kvamsdal Rolf, "Shaft Alignment," European Shipbuilding, Nos.
1 and 2, 1969. '
4 Kvamsdal, Rolf, "Shaft Alignment Control by Means of the Strain
Gage (Bending Moments) Technique," Det norske Veritas, Research
Department Report 68-19-M, Oslo, 1968.
5 "Strain Gage Misalignment Errors," Micro-Measurements Tech
Note TN-138-4, Measurements Group, Romulus, Michigan.
6 Sechler, Ernest E., Elasticity in Engineering, Dover Press, New
York, 1952, pp. 131-136 and pp. 157 162.
7 Peterson, R. E., Stress Concentration Factors, Wiley, New York,
1974, pp. 80-82.
Discussers
F. Everett Reid
George Laing
Appendix 1
Axial alignment of strain gages
The strain gages must be accurately aligned in the axial direction before the strain-gage procedure can be successfully
employed. The reason error is introduced into the moment calculation by misalignment as shown in Fig. 11. Here, the error is
the difference between the actual strain (e) and the measured
strain (e,) and it can be expressed for uniaxial stress in the
principal direction [5] as
JULY 1981
Appendix 2
Example Calculations from recent experience
For the recent experience case the shafting arrangement, gage
locations and error-bound results are summarized on Fig. 9 and
Table 4. A brief description is included here to illustrate how the
bearing reactions were obtained from the measured strains. The
first step was to modify equation (3) to account for the gage
configuration employed and to allow for the input of the maximum and minimum strains directly. The preliminary alignment
procedure employed at Sun usually eliminates appreciable horizontal misalignment and it is not considered unless the readings
indicate a significant problem. The resulting vertical moment
relationship becomes
My
(~b -- c t )
-
EI
4c
(17)
f 211.9
(13.5 - x)p(x)dx
J0
(18)
283
Table 6
Stern-tube section:
38.616 X 10~+m~
Re
=
301.53
V 3 = R e - 140 372
v2 = v 3 + R d - 4 0
-m2-
v l = v2 + R c -
a) Forward Gear
b) Aft Gear
c)
Free section:
Forward Line
d) Aft Line
1.6808X 10
165.8
20 173
6
Fc
Reactions
Full Model Free Section
,L
bT
Fe
(306.3)+5.8175X 106
206.05
166
Rd = m2-m3-v3
Fb
A~ line shaft:
Rc _ml
Fd
Fa
515
196
2716
2729
-491
- 18
3409
342 7
169
fOOl
-495
460
+302
152
ml--mlb+
U1 b - -
v l = Vlb --
e) Stern Tube
Fig. 13
Gear section:
Rb - -ml
Ra = -vl
- R b + 85 5 2 2
= 0 = Ra + Rb + V1 -
211.9
~(x)dx
(19)
where all gear weights are included in #(x) and all the integrals
can be evaluated by segmenting the shaft. Solving (18) and (19)
for R a and R b results in
Rb =
R~ = - R5 - V~ + 85522
(20)
(21)
This process is continued for each shaft free body and the results
of these calculations are given on Table 6.
The equations for horizontal reactions and shears are obtained
in a similar manner but no shaft weights are included. These
relationships may be obtained by inspection from the equations
in Table 6 simply by removing all constant terms. For the recent
284
experience case, horizontal reactions were obtained for a warmplant condition with all bearings well lubricated. These are included in Fig. 13 where reactions in the port direction are given
as positive. These reactions are subject to the same error bounds
(r's in Table 4) as the vertical reactions and only reactions larger
than r can be considered as significant. Since horizontal reactions
have not been obtained for a large number of ships over a significant time period, a method for evaluating the importance of
horizontal forces in the shaft system is not available.
Obtaining horizontal reactions using strain gages is complicated slightly by the physical situations. No weight loads exist
in the horizontal direction to seat the shaft in the bearings, and
the shaft may move due to frictional forces induced during shaft
rotation. To minimize this problem, the shaft should be rotated
in both directions with well-lubricated bearings while taking
strain readings and then the strains should be compared. If discrepancies exist, they should be corrected before any attempt is
made to obtain horizontal reactions from these strains. A second
complication arises from the way strain changes during the
rotation of the shaft. As shown in Fig. 4, the strain is changing
most rapidly near 90 to 270 deg or at the points where the horizontal moment is being obtained. Care must be taken, therefore,
to get acceptable strain readings in the horizontal plane.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY