Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Page 1 of 3
UR M53 Calculation of Crankshafts for I.C. Engines
Part A. Revision History
Version no. Approval date Implementation date
when applicable
Rev.2 (Jan 2011) 06 Jan 2011 1 Jan 2012
Rev.1 (Dec 2004) Dec 2004 1 Jan 2007
New (1986) 1986 -
Rev.2 (Jan 2011)
.1 Origin of Change:
Request by non-IACS entity (CIMAC)
.2 Main Reason for Change:
CIMAC raised the issue that the empirical stress concentration factors in the calculation
rules in the UR M53 do not cover some of the currently used crankshaft designs.
Therefore in order to assist, the alternative method for calculation of Stress
Concentration Factors in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite Element
Method was agreed.
.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the
TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:
None
.4 History of Decisions Made:
CIMAC submitted its proposal during the IACS-CIMAC (WG2) Sept. 2008 meeting. The
proposal was then discussed in the Machinery Panel. After reviewing the proposal the
Machinery Panel had comments which were later clarified by CIMAC. However the IACS
Machinery Panel had concerns with the extent of validation, as the validation was
made for one test previously and that no further validation data was available. After
further discussion it was agreed to insert it as an appendix and use it as an alternative
approach when the prescriptive method does not apply.
.5 Other Resolutions Changes
None
.6 Dates:
Original Proposal: September 2008 Made by CIMAC (WG2)
Panel Approval: September 2010
GPG Approval: 06 January 2011 (Ref: 10171_IGc)
Rev.1 (Dec 2004)
See TB in Part B.
New (1986)
No TB document available.
Part B
Page 3 of 3
Part B. Technical Background
List of Technical Background (TB) documents:
Annex 1 TB for Rev.1 (Dec 2004)
See separate TB document in Annex 1.
Annex 2 TB for Rev. 2 (Jan 2011)
See separate TB document in Annex 2.
Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for New (1986).
CIMAC Crankshaft Working Group (WG4)
Documentation and remarks to IACS WP/MCH comments
July 2. 2003, M. W. Rasser / Chairman
CIMAC Proposal for Revised M53
IACS WP/MCH Comments
Comments have been received from members and these essentially stem from
the need to provide technical justification for the changes and new requirements.
For the proposals to be accepted and incorporated as Unified Requirements we
have to provide a technical justification for the requirements and it is noted that
we have not received any additional technical documentation other than the 30
pages expanded from the original 15.
Identification of the changes and the background to each change and addition is
required as part of the technical justification.
Some comments received include:
1) Fig 5 and Fig 7
For crankshafts with overlap and recessed fillets, the web thickness W appears to
be taken at the outside of the web which is different from that indicated in Fig 5
for a crankshaft without overlap, where W is taken from the centre of the
recessed fillet.
CIMAC remark:
The definition of W for cranks with overlap is identical to M53-issue 1986, and is
taken from the outside of the web.
The definition of W for cranks without overlap is newly introduced, see Fig. 5.
The newly introduced definition of W is proposed based on the fact that all 2-
stroke manufacturers have crankshafts in operation for long time which do not
fulfil the M53 with respect to the limitation of TH (TH RH).
The proposal is therefore to define a reduced web thickness in such a way that it
ends at the centre of RH. The definition also matches the relevant cross section
more closely.
Part B, Annex 1
2) M53.2.2.2
Statement there are to be no barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 of
rated speed. It is not unusual to have barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of
>0.8 for the one cylinder misfiring condition in two stroke engines and it is
suggested that the sentence should be modified to read. There are to be no
barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 for normal firing conditions.
CIMAC remark:
Agreed. The wording is included in the latest draft M53 revision.
3) M53.6
K factor for cast steel crankshaft (was 0.93) has been removed and replaced by
is to be agreed between engine manufacturer and the Classification Society.
No technical justification has been given about the inadequacy of the
previous value considering that semi-built cast steel crankshafts are widely
used. It is considered that a specific value should be established in the UR.
Also it is considered necessary to establish basic requirements regarding
fatigue testing of crankshafts or specimens and to include these in the UR.
CIMAC remark:
The K factor for cast steel cranks has been removed and replaced by the
comment on agreement between engine builders and Classification Society. The
wording was agreed between CIMAC and the IACS representative Mr. E.
Sandberg in a meeting held on 15/16 April 1999.
The reason for the modified wording was that the previous figure of 0.93 was not
considered realistic according to crankshaft manufacturer data. In current
practice only 2-stroke engines use cast steel cranks with special treatment (e.g.
stroke peening). Those engines never use the K figure, as given in UR M53
issue 1986, but get individual approval from Classification Societies.
The wording as proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since
many years.
Regarding the provision of alternative means of determining of fatigue
strength based on testing of specimens taken from a full size crankthrow it is
proposed a size correction factor should be established, or to develop
procedures for specimen testing in order to provide for a common basis of
acceptance of such fatigue test results.
CIMAC remark:
CIMAC see the development of a common basis for the acceptance of fatigue
test results outside the scope of the UR M53 revision. The wording in M53.6 as
proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since many years.
4) M53.2.1.3
The calculation of alternating bending stress does not take into account
alternating axial stress. For crosshead type engines LR Rules take into account
axial alternating stress derived from forced-damped calculations.
The section includes a procedure for calculating alternating bending and
torsional stresses in outlet of oil bore. LR Rules do not publish a procedure but
require that a fatigue strength calculation or alternative fatigue test results may
be required to demonstrate acceptability of the design. Whilst no objection is
raised to the proposed approach its accuracy is crucially dependent on the
evaluation of the stress concentration for the oil hole. In the absence of a
detailed justification, LR would continue to require, perhaps as an alternative to
the proposed calculation method full fatigue analysis or experimental results.
5) M53.3
The dimensional ratio r lower limit is extended to 0.015, LR Rules limit this to
0.03. It is not clear on what grounds this extension is proposed.
CIMAC remark:
The discussion to extended the range of the parameter r from the current value
of 0.03 down to lower values dates back some years. Meanwhile technical
progress has obviated this range extension, as it is unlikely that modern
crankshaft designs show fillet radii with the parameter r below 0.03.
The latest draft M53 therefore goes back to the original range for the parameter
r with a lower limit of 0.03.
6) M53.4
These stresses indicate that the misalignment component considered is
10N/mm
2
and that for the crosshead engines, assuming the same level of
misalignment the axial component is 20N/mm
2.
LR would recommend that the value of 20N/mm
2
should be used only as
guidance where no axial vibration calculations are available. It is considered that
this value may be too high for a majority of systems operating away from axial or
torsional (cross coupled effect should be considered) natural frequencies.
CIMAC remark:
CIMAC agree with this recommendation, nevertheless the wording of the UR
M53 issue 1986 is carried over to the latest draft M53.
7) M53.8
The background to the expression in paragraph 8.2 is requested.
CIMAC remark:
Literature
Auslegung elastisch-plastisch beanspruchter Pressverbnde Author Franz
Gustav Kollmann published in "Forschung Ing.-Wes." Vol. 44 (1978) NR. 1, p.
1 11
DIN 7190 "Pressverbnde, Berechnungsgrundlagen und Gestaltungsregeln"
A reply to the points raised a copy of the development process for the proposed
changes that include technical justifications would assist in the final acceptance
of the proposals by the WP/MCH.
Norman Rattenbury
Lloyds Register of Shipping
26
th
September 2001
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
UR M53 REVISED EDITION
MAIN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DECIDED WORDING DURING
CIMAC W.G. MEETING (15/16
th
APRIL 1999)
AND FINAL WORDING PRESENTED
IACS/CIMAC COMMON MEETING
(11
th
NOVEMBER 1999)
\
|
|
|
.
|
=
2
,
2
,
2
max
3 1 3 2 2 1
o o o o o o
t
equiv
The maximum value taken for the subsequent calculation of the SCF:
N
equiv
T
t
t
o
o
,
=
N
equiv
T
t
t
|
|
,
=
where
N
is nominal torsional stress referred to the crankpin and respectively journal
as per UR M53 2.2.2 with the torsional torque T:
P
N
W
T
= t
Load:
Torque T
applied to
central node
Multi-point constraint:
All nodes of cross
section are rigidly
connected to central
node (=master)
y
x
z
Boundary
Conditions:
DOFs for all
nodes are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0
-7-
3.2. Pure bending (4 point bending)
In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV the
structure is loaded in pure bending. In the model surface warp at the end faces is
suppressed.
The bending moment is applied to the central node located at the crankshaft axis.
This node acts as the master node with 6 degrees of freedom and is connected
rigidly to all nodes of the end face.
Boundary and load conditions are valid for both in-line- and V- type engines.
Figure 3.2 Boundary and load conditions for the pure bending load case.
For all nodes in both the journal and pin fillet von Mises equivalent stresses
equiv
are
extracted. The maximum value is used to calculate the SCF according to:
N
equiv
B
o
o
o
o
,
=
N
equiv
B
o
o
|
|
,
=
Boundary
Conditions:
DOFs for all
nodes are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0
Load:
In-plane
bending by
moment M
applied at
central node
Multi-point constraint:
All nodes of cross
section are rigidly
connected to central
node (=master)
y
x
z
-8-
Nominal stress
N
is calculated as per UR M53 2.1.2.1 with the bending moment M:
eqw
N
W
M
= o
3.3. Bending with shear force (3-point bending)
This load case is calculated to determine the SCF for pure transverse force (radial
force, |
Q
) for the journal fillet.
In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV, the
structure is loaded in 3-point bending. In the model, surface warp at the both end
faces is suppressed. All nodes are connected rigidly to the centre node; boundary
conditions are applied to the centre nodes. These nodes act as master nodes with 6
degrees of freedom.
The force is applied to the central node located at the pin centre-line of the
connecting rod. This node is connected to all nodes of the pin cross sectional area.
Warping of the sectional area is not suppressed.
Boundary and load conditions are valid for in-line and V-type engines. V-type engines
can be modelled with one connecting rod force only. Using two connecting rod forces
will make no significant change in the SCF.
-9-
Figure 3.3. Boundary and load conditions for the 3-point bending load case of an in-
line engine.
Figure 3.4 Load applications for in-line and V-type engines.
The maximum equivalent von Mises stress o
3P
in the journal fillet is evaluated.
The SCF in the journal fillet can be determined in two ways as shown below.
Multi-point
constrai nt:
All nodes of
cross section
are connected
to a central
node (=master)
Load:
Force F
3p
applied
at central node at
connecting rod centre
line.
Boundary
Conditions:
Displacements for
master node are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0;
= 0 (rotations
are free)
y
x
z
Boundary
Conditions:
Displacements in y
and z directions for
master node are
restrained
u
y,z
=0.
u
x
, = 0 (axial
displacement and
rotations are free)
Boundary Conditions:
Displacement in z direction
for master node is
restrained, u
z
=0;
u
y
, u
x
and = 0 (axial,
vertical displacements and
rotations are free)
-10-
3.3.1. Method 1
This method is analogue to the FVV investigation. The results from 3-point and 4-
point bending are combined as follows:
Q P Q B P N P
| o | o o + =
3 3 3
where:
3P
as found by the FE calculation.
N3P
Nominal bending stress in the web centre due to the force F
3P
[N]
applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see figure 3.4.
B
as determined in paragraph 3.2.
Q3P
=Q
3P
/(BW) where Q
3P
is the radial (shear) force in the web due to the
force F
3P
[N] applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see
also figures 3 and 4 in M53.
3.3.2. Method 2
This method is not analogous to the FVV investigation. In a statically determined
system with one crank throw supported by two bearings, the bending moment and
radial (shear) force are proportional. Therefore the journal fillet SCF can be found
directly by the 3-point bending FE calculation.
The SCF is then calculated according to
P N
P
BQ
3
3
o
o
| =
For symbols see 3.3.1.
When using this method the radial force and stress determination in M53 becomes
superfluous. The alternating bending stress in the journal fillet as per UR M53 2.1.3 is
then evaluated:
BFN BQ BG
o | o =
Note that the use of this method does not apply to the crankpin fillet and that this
SCF must not be used in connection with calculation methods other than those
assuming a statically determined system as in M53.