Propulsion Shafting Alignment
Propulsion Shafting Alignment
Propulsion Shafting Alignment
APRIL 2004
Copyright 2004
American Bureau of Shipping
ABS Plaza
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060 USA
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Foreword
The mission of the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS or Bureau) is to serve the public interest, as
well as the needs of its clients, by promoting the security of life, property and the natural environment
primarily through the development and verification of standards for the design, construction and
operational maintenance of marine-related facilities.
The Rules and Guides on which classification is predicated are established from theoretical and
empirical principles of naval architecture, marine engineering and other engineering principles that
have proven satisfactory by service experience and systematic analysis. The classification Rules are
not intended to address every single aspect of the vessel design, but rather to indicate the minimum set
of criteria which will ensure safety and functionality of all vital components of the vessel, and at the
same time provide sufficient space to the industry to accommodate their practices and technologies
with minimum constraints from regulatory bodies.
However, in situations where the complexity of the problem results in conflicting interpretation of
regulations and when the consequence of this disparity results in damage to the equipment and affects
vessel’s safety, additional regulation clarification and guidance may be necessary. The case of shaft
alignment is an example of where the Bureau has noticed the need to provide a more detailed
explanation on alignment design and practices, which has resulted in the development of the subject
Guidance Notes. These Guidance Notes have been developed primarily to clarify the subject matter
for the Bureau field inspectors and design review engineers to ensure consistency of the survey and
plan approval process. Moreover, the subject guidelines may help the industry to improve its approach
towards shaft alignment analyses and procedures.
Additionally, the Bureau has developed state of the art analytical tools primarily for the purpose of
engineering analysis and design. The ABS shaft alignment program, combined with alignment
optimization software, is capable of analyzing complex propulsion installations and, when used as
design tool, may provide an optimal solution to the alignment problem.
We welcome your feedback. Comments or suggestions can be sent electronically to [email protected] .
9 Stress Measurements
Related topic:
• Strain gauge method (5/2.2)
1 General
Hull girder deflections are the most significant disturbance that affects the bearing offset and,
accordingly, the shaft alignment after the vessel construction. Inability to account for hull deflections
may result in inappropriate alignment design with serious consequences on the life of the bearings.
The problem, however, is a difficulty in predicting and evaluating the hull deflections.
The vessels known to be particularly sensitive to hull girder deflection variation are large tankers and
bulk carriers. The schematic in Section 6, Figure 1 shows how these types of vessels are behaving
under two extreme loading cases (ballast and laden).
FIGURE 1
Hull Girder Deflections Influence on Propulsion System
Typical hull girder deflections of a VLCC vessel under laden and Behavior of the shafting under laden and ballast conditions.
ballast conditions.
2 Analytical Approach
The analytical approach is time-consuming and expensive. It requires detailed modeling (e.g., finite
element) of the vessel, in particular, the stern part, with a comprehensive model of the engine room,
the engine and the shafting. The analytical approach is seldom undertaken solely for the purpose of
investigating the hull deflections’ effect on the alignment. It is more common to take advantage of the
full scale vessel modeling conducted for the dynamic loading analysis (or similar) to extract the data
on hull deflections that may be applied in alignment analysis.
The container vessel example considered here indicates the importance of hull deflection
consideration. When shaft alignment analysis is conducted without hull deflection consideration, there
is no warning of possible problems. Eventually, when the analysis is repeated with hull deflections
included, there is an indication that a problem may exist with M/E bearing unloading in laden
condition of the vessel.
FIGURE 2
Large Container Vessel Shafting for
Shaft Alignment Analysis Purpose
For prescribed bearing offsets below, the reactions in the bearings are almost ideally defined.
FIGURE 3
Shaft Alignment Design with No Hull Deflections Considered
If hull deflections for ballast and laden vessel (ABS dynamic loading analysis is applied for that
purpose) are now investigated, the results obtained are as follows:
FIGURE 4
Still-water Deflections of the Vessel
FIGURE 5
Containership – Diesel Engine Bearing Reactions as a Function of Hull
Deflections and Bedplate Sag
Ballast Laden
Conducting the analysis with hull deflection as obtained above, the following results are obtained:
FIGURE 6
Still-water Hull Deflections – Ballast
Ballast
Bearing offset: Still water hull deflections – Ballast Bearing reactions: Still water hull deflections – Ballast
FIGURE 7
Still-water Hull Deflections – Laden
Laden
Bearing offset: Still water hull deflections - Laden Bearing Reactions: Still water hull deflections - Laden
Section 6, Figure 7 indicates that hull deflections may result in the second M/E bearing unloading.
The statement made is conditional as the analytical results may often deviate from the actual condition
due to:
• Approximations made in system modeling (e.g., crankshaft equivalent model),
• Errors in calculated hull deflections (FEA modeling)
• Differences in conditions between as-is alignment and design proposed alignment.
However, if analysis is conducted following good engineering practices with good error management,
the designer shall be able to conclude whether the results are plausible, and if needed, suggest the
bearing reaction verification (jack-up measurement within the engine)
Hull deflection data is needed during the design stage of the alignment process in order to prescribe
bearing offsets which will result in acceptable bearing reactions for ballast, laden and all operating
conditions in-between. At that time, the vessel is not yet under construction and the only option is to
rely on the ship hull deflection data (which is seldom available) or measurements conducted on
similar vessels.
Hull deflection measurements can be conducted by investigating the bearing offset change from one
vessel condition to another. For such a task, a strain gauge measurement combined with either the
crankshaft deflection measurements or the M/E bearing reaction measurements should be applied. It
would also be possible to consider M/E bedplate deflection measurements combined with the strain
gauges if the accuracy of the readings can be trusted.
Strain gauge method is convenient because of its consistent accuracy, and the error initially
introduced will be constant throughout the repeated measurements. This is important information as
the primary interest is normally in investigating the change in hull deflection from one state to another
(dry dock condition vs. different afloat condition – Section 6, Figure 8), and by doing so, the constant
error will be eliminated. Other methods like jack-up, optical, laser and piano wire do not have this
advantage of error control.
FIGURE 8
Vessel Deflections Change with Loading Condition
The example used here to show how the hull deflection measurements may be conducted is the same
container vessel on which the analytical investigation of the hull deflections was conducted.
Strain gauges were placed along the line shaft and the bending moments were measured. At the same
time, engine crankshaft deflections and M/E bearing reactions were measured. The reverse analyses
were then conducted to obtain bearing offset from the above measured parameters.
The obtained results are shown below:
Measurement: Calculated:
Hull deflection change from dry dock to ballast condition Hull deflection – ballast condition
A very good agreement in analytically predicting intensity and the shape of the deflection curve of the
vessel in ballast condition is obtained.
25
20
]
m15
m
[
t
e
s
f
f
o
l
a
c
i
t
r 10
e
V
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96
Measurement: Calculated:
Hull deflection change from dry dock to laden condition Hull deflection – laden condition
Laden condition prediction is in less compliance with measurement. The reason is the difference in
actual load distribution from the one that was analytically predicted.
1 General
The shaft alignment problem is stochastic with an infinite number of bearing offsets satisfying the
requirements.
The goal of the shaft alignment optimization is to provide a set of acceptable solutions which all
satisfy imposed constraints, alignment parameters and criteria. Multiple solutions are necessary as it
is often an imperative to have the engineering evaluation as the final decisive factor in selecting the
desired alignment. Providing multiple solutions is an inherited characteristic of GA, and it is a
relatively simple task for a genetic algorithm.
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization procedure is used in ABS as an appropriate tool to search
for the optimal set of solutions. GA’s ability to conduct parallel search throughout the solution space
is its biggest advantage as opposed to other search tools. The parallel search provides software
capable of simultaneously providing multiple sets of bearing offsets which satisfy the bearing loading
requirements. The GA program optimizes among several constraint functions (as defined by hull
girder deflections). Constraints which bind the solution space are defined by hull deflection curvatures
which normally represent the still water ballast and laden vessel conditions. Sometimes, when
maximum hogging and maximum sagging wave deflections are analytically estimated, it may be
advisable to investigate how the extreme hull deflections influence the alignment (these conditions are
not directly applicable as they represent dynamic operating conditions).
The complexity and speed of optimization will depend on a number of variables which are considered
in the optimization process. The parameters and alignment criteria which should be considered
normally imply compliance with the regulatory requirements, i.e.:
• Thermal expansion
• Diesel engine bedplate prescribed sagging
• Bearing wear down
• Bearing elasticity is not considered due to its complexity (dependent on the contact area/
misalignment slope between the shaft and the bearing)
Additional requirements also need to be satisfied, e.g., the main engine flange allowable moment and
shear force are to be in accordance with the engine designer recommendations.
2 Optimization Example
The example used to evaluate the optimization program performance is a typical VLCC arrangement
with a single propulsion system, relatively short shafting and the low speed diesel engine as a main
drive.
The particular problems that this kind of vessel may experience are:
• After stern tube bearing damage due to the excessive misalignment between the bearing and the
shaft
• Main engine bearings (the aftmost three engine bearings are particularly at risk of being damaged
due to improper alignment)
Section 7, Figure 1 represents a discrete model of the propulsion shafting and diesel engine for the
purpose of shaft alignment analysis.
FIGURE 1
Discrete Model of the Shafting
The above system (Section 7, Figure 1) was originally designed with the following bearing offsets
(Section 7, Figure 2) and bearing reactions (Section 7, Figure 3):
FIGURE 2
Bearing Offset; Shaft Deflection Curve; Nodal Slopes
FIGURE 3
Bearing Reactions; Bending Moment; Shear Forces
The above results look satisfactory for the particular case evaluated. However, if hull deflections are
applied to the same system, the results of the analyses for two extreme cases of hull girder deflections
(Section 7, Table1) are not satisfactory.
(Hull deflections are the rough estimate of possible hull girder deflections applied for evaluation
purposes only.)
TABLE 1
Estimated Hull Girder Deflections
FIGURE 4
Laden – Bearing Offset Disturbed by Hull Deflections;
Bearing Reactions – Unloaded M/E Bearing #2
Total bearing offset Bearing reactions: M/E second aftmost bearing unloaded,
intermediate shaft bearing very lightly loaded
FIGURE 5
Ballast – Bearing Offset Disturbed by Hull Deflections;
Bearing Reactions – Unloaded M/E Bearing #2
Total bearing offset Bearing reactions: M/E second aftmost bearing unloaded
The above analyses show that the initially prescribed offset does not satisfy the alignment
requirements if hull deflections are considered, as the M/E second aftmost bearing gets unloaded
(Section 7, Figure 4 for laden, and Section 7, Figure 5 for ballast condition).
The present practice in shaft alignment design does not normally include the hull deflections.
Therefore, the only means of controlling the alignment condition is by measurement. However,
measurements on the most sensitive segment of the system, i.e., the diesel engine bearings, are not
conducted as a regular practice either. The consequence of this may be eventual damage and failure of
the bearings.
In the above case, if the hull deflections would be initially included, one would be able to predict the
eventual problems and conduct the alignment with another set of prescribed offset at the bearings.
However, without an optimization tool at hand, this process may be extremely time-consuming and
difficult.
All of this indicates the necessity for optimization to be applied.
3 Optimization
The above analyses suggest that a different set of initially prescribed offsets be provided in order to
ensure the subject installation’s satisfactory alignment under ballast and loaded vessel conditions.
Optimization may help investigate the solution simpler and faster than a trial and error process
conducted without support of the computer software.
GAR software is applied, taking into consideration the following data (Section 7, Figure 6):
FIGURE 6
GA Input Data and Output Showing Two of Ten Desired Solutions
The diversified solutions are desired because very different bearing offsets may similarly satisfy the
bearing reactions. Namely, satisfactory bearing reactions may be obtained by the engine being risen
above the zero offset line. At the same time, very similar solution (bearing reaction wise) may be
obtained with the main engine (M/E) being lowered below zero offset line.
The solution with M/E being lowered below the zero line will eventually result in a smaller
inclination gradient between the shaft and the stern tube bearing, however. However, the stress in the
shaft in that case will be higher.
In cases without forward stern tube bearing, the solution with M/E below zero line will result in a
much more sensitive misalignment in the aft stern tube bearing, and therefore, this solution may not
be found acceptable.
Solutions obtained by applying an optimization routine are tabulated in a format which provides
detailed information on how a particular change in the offset condition affects the alignment. Namely,
bearing reactions calculated for respective bearing offset are as follows:
• Zero offset reactions
• Reaction difference which when, applied to zero-offset solution, provides the desired bearing load
(i.e., all positive reactions)
• Maximum hogging bearing reactions
• Maximum sagging bearing reactions
e
n . ]
i g m 0
0
0
0
4
8
0
0
8
4
0
g a m 0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
n S [ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E . . . . . . . . . . .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- - - - - -
-
-
l -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a t -
m e ] -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r s m -
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
e
f m -
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
h
f [ - . . . . . . . . . . .
T O -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
l . -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l t -
u c ] -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H e m -
0
5
7
2
0
8
6
4
2
1
0
l m -
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
f [ - . . . . . . . . . . .
i e -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M D - - - - - - - - - -
-
-
l . -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l t -
u c -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H e ] -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l m -
0
5
7
2
0
8
6
4
2
1
0
x
f m - . . . . . . . . . . .
a e [ -
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
M D -
-
-
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d -
e -
0
9
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
8
n ] -
0
7
9
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
A
i y m -
0
4
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
f
d m - . . . . . . . . . . .
e [ -
0
3
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
d -
-
-
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t -
n l e .
] -
0
a s n m -
9
0
3
2
4
2
9
1
4
4
2
7
2
0
4
3
8
6
8
8
0
o
i s t
f
o
i m -
f M
0
4
1
9
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
[ - . . . . . . . . . . .
t n
o
T O -
0
-
3
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
u
2 l i
t
u
-
-
l -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E o o
s
t
l e .
-
] -
0
9
3
4
9
4
2
2
4
8
8
L S a s x m -
t
0
f a m -
7
0
9
9
3
8
4
2
5
1
6
9
7
7
8
5
9
3
0
2
2
B l y o
f M
[ - . . . . . . . . . . .
r T O -
0
3
6
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
A a
o
t
-
-
c -
m
T i a
f
|
|
|
| -
|
-
|
1
|
7
|
3
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
8
|
5
2
t s
i
t )
-
1
] -
2
4
7
9
8
8
9
7
9
6
0
8
8
7
8
9
0
1
2
5
8
p a
s
y y N - . . . . . . . . . . .
R
d
k -
4
5
7
4
2
3
9
2
4
8
4
O
(
[ -
4
4
2
2
7
5
9
7
6
2
9
-
5 1 2
1
2
2
2
3
0 -
1 -
f )
-
-
o s -
6
2
0
3
2
3
3
0
5
6
6
l f -
9
7
8
3
2
2
6
6
9
0
3
o 0
f
] -
9
0
7
9
5
9
2
9
9
7
6
y O N - . . . . . . . . . . .
o 0 R .
k -
4
6
4
2
7
2
1
5
4
2
5
p 0
0
n
[ -
i
4
-
4
2
3
6
5
5 1 2
0
1
6
3
7
2
2
2
9
3
a 0
1
M
(
-
-
. -
m 1 S ) -
o
r
N s
: O f
-
3
-
1
3
2
3
4
7
2
8
8
9
5
4
2
0
6
8
7
3
5
9
0
f S I f
] -
5
3
1
9
1
6
2
5
0
1
9
s S T y O N - . . . . . . . . . . .
E C R .
k -
8
6
4
5
1
5
5
5
3
9
4
n N A x
[ -
1
0
3
7
8
5
8
4
4
9
8
o
i
T E a -
5
1 2 1
2
3
1
3
t I R
F
M
(
-
-
u
l
m
h T
R
-
-
o t
O -
2
5
1
3
6
2
8
9
2
6
6
s i
r 2 P -
7
5 P y ] -
0
8
6
6
1
8
7
5
6
6
8
3
0
7
0
0
4
1
9
1
4
d o
g U R N - . . . . . . . . . . .
e
t l : S
g
l k -
6
e [ -
7
5
0
8
8
2
8
0
2
0
6
3
5
1
3
2 - -
1
-
c A
n d - - -
1
2
1
e
l c i
r
-
-
- -
e
s
i
t t
S
-
-
e
:
s
n
e ]
-
3
-
8
8
4
7
8
3
5
9
5
1
6
5
5
1
1
9
9
9
8
5
1
t
l G 0 ] -
[
2
6
7
2
0
2
9
9
2
3
3
N - . . . . . . . . . . .
u h 9 y k -
1
1
8
3
4
6
2
7
5
5
6
s t R [ -
0
4
4
3
6
8
7
7
6
2
9
e
r
i
w
-
6 -
-
1
1 2
2
2
2
3
-
n n : -
o
i
o n
o
|
|
|
-
|
| -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t i
t i - > > > > > > > > > > >
a a t e -
7
4
7
1
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
z
i z
i
a
r
d o - 1
o N -
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
e N - < < < < < < < < < < <
m
i
m
i n -
t t e
G
.
p
-
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
p p
O u o 1
1
O S N
TABLE 3
Dry Dock – Bearing Reactions for Prescribed Offset
Dry dock condition offset and bearing reactions
Reactions Offset
800
GA 700
Ry
Define
(dy) 600
d
[kN]
Dy 500
[mm] 400
1 544.411 0
300
2 45.927 3.479
3 127.873 6.193 200
5 272.691 7.003 0
6 153.893 7.012 1
2
7 299.704 7.022 3
4
5 [kN]
8 272.986 7.032 Bearing Reactions
6
Bearing Offset * 100 [mm] 7
9 264.188 7.042 8
9 ]
10 328.505 7.052 10
11
]
m
m
[
N
k
[ 0
11 94.822 7.058 s
n
0
1
o *
i
t t
c e
a s
f
e f
R O
g g
n
i n
i
r r
a a
e e
B B
TABLE 4
Ballast Vessel Hull Deflections – Bearing Reactions and Total Bearing Offset
Ballast vessel offset and bearing reactions
Reactions Offset
800
Ry GA 700
4 32.933 6.914
100
5 267.522 7.049
0
6 152.923 7.074
1
7 301.263 7.102 2
3
4
Bearing Reactions [kN]
8 265.96 7.132 5
Bearing Offset * 100 [mm] 6
7
9 274.995 7.164 8
9
]
10 322.706 7.188 10
11
]
m
m
[
N
k
[ 0
11 95.636 7.208 s
n
o
0
1
*
i
t t
c e
a s
f
e f
R O
g g
n n
i
i
r r
a a
e e
B B
TABLE 5
Laden Vessel Hull Deflections – Bearing Reactions
and Total Bearing Offset
Laden vessel offset and bearing reactions
Reactions Offset
900
Ry GA 800
[kN] Dy 600
[mm] 500
1 518.533 0 400
5 81.192 8.149 0
6 155.648 7.954 1
2
3
7 285.205 7.762 4
5
Bearing Reactions [kN] 6
8 345.582 7.572 Bearing Offset * 100 [mm]
7
8
9
9 143.036 7.384 10
]
m
]
11 N m
[
10 399.197 7.298 k
[
s
0
0
n 1
o *
11 84.905 7.208 i
t
c
a
t
e
s
e f
f
R O
g g
n
i n
i
r r
a a
e e
B B
For the estimated hull deflections, the bearing reactions in all three cases, i.e., even keel (dry dock),
ballast and laden, are satisfactory. The solution is robust, and if predicted hull deflections are within
given limits, no unloaded bearings are to be expected.
Another important issue to be investigated is the misalignment slope between the shaft and the tail
shaft bearing. The misalignment shall be reduced by slope boring if the shaft exerts exces sive pressure
on the bearing shell. ABS shaft alignment software is used in the bearing contact investigation.
Dry dock condition no slope boring Dry dock condition with slope boring
Contact pressure 497 MPa Contact pressure reduced to 139 MPa
The optimization algorithm applied here appears to determine the desired number of acceptable
solutions within given constraints. The solution is found in a relatively short time. All of the benefits
of conducting the shaft alignment optimization are immediately obvious from the presented example.
It is noticed that the original alignment, as defined by taking the conventional approach in conducting
alignment, will not result in a satisfactory static loading condition for the estimated hull deflections
applied. In the conventional approach, the second aftmost main engine bearing and possibly the
intermediate shaft bearing may get unloaded. Unloading of the main engine bearing confirms the very
problems currently plaguing the propulsion installations. This all gives even more credibility to the
proposed method, which can provide satisfactory solutions to the potentially dangerous problem.
Another problem is the accurate prediction of the hull girder deflections. The solution to the problem
will obviously be very much dependent on the ability to evaluate hull deflections accurately enough to
confidently evaluate the alignment. One possible way of doing so is to establish a generic data base of
hull girder deflections for certain categories of the vessels and use the data base when vessels of
similar design are evaluated. Data can be obtained either analytically or by measurement. The Bureau
has already taken steps in that direction.
Relatively accurate hull deflection prediction and optimized alignment would allow alignment
designers to confidently design alignment for the dry dock vessel condition. The alignment procedure
could then be conducted fully in the dry dock. This would significantly increase the accuracy of the
whole process, as verification of analysis by measurement would be possible with very little
disturbance affecting the system.
1 Abbreviations
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
Bureau ABS
Class Classification society
M/E Main engine; implies diesel engine if not stated differently
Rules ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels are implied if not stated differently
S/T Stern tube
TDC Top dead center – defines position of the piston in the engine cylinder.
2 Definitions
Alignment procedure: An executable part of the alignment process where alignment is performed in
accordance with the requirements defined by the alignment designer.
Alignment process: Consists of the design and analysis, the alignment procedure and measurements.
Bearing offset: Bearing offset is vertical displacement of the contact face of the bearing from the
optically established central line of the shafting.
Bedplate pre-sagging: Process by which the vertical deformation (catenary curve) is introduced on
engine’s bedplate to prevent engine alignment problems.
Bore sighting: See sighting-through.
Crankshaft deflections: Change in distance between crank webs, measured during one rotation of the
crankshaft.
Bearing clearance: Radial gap between the shaft and the bearing shell.
Horizontal offset: Horizontal bearing offset is normally not desired.
Influence coefficients: Values defining relative change in bearing reactions as the offset at particular
bearing changes for unit value.
Jack-up procedure: Procedure which uses hydraulic jacks to measure bearing reactions.
Lifting/lowering line gradient: Angle of the plotted jack-up line measured in mm/kN (or similar
displacement vs. force units).
Misalignment angle: Angular difference between central line of the shaft and the central line of the
respective bearing.
Negative offset: Bearing vertical position below the referenced (zero) line.