Solutions to Failures

of Shaft Bearings on Vessels

Fitted
with Z-Drive Thrusters

Z
Drive Main
Engine

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 OVERVIEW

• System Arrangement and Design Features

• Damage Examples
• Alignment Criteria
• Vibration Criteria
• Theoretical Analysis
• Case Studies
• Conclusions & Recommendations

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Propulsion System Arrangement

Cardan
Shaft
Lineshaft
Stub
Shaft
Z
Main
Drive
Engine
Support
Bearings

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Design Characteristics
• High Speed Shaft (900 to 2000 RPM)
• Low Static Loads on Lineshaft Bearings
• Stiff Shafting System
• Excitation Forces at 2 x Shaft Speed
• Bending Moment Coupled to Torque

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Damages

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Burnt Races

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Burnt and Cracked Race

LamaLo Technology Inc.

One Side Overheated

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Inside of Bearing Cap

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Metal Particles in Grease

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Alignment Theory and Practice

• Define Alignment Criteria

(Load, Displacement, )

• Calculate Theoretical Alignment Condition

(Loads, Influence Numbers, Shaft Stress …)

• Develop Prescribed Alignment Condition

(Bearing Offsets to Satisfy all Alignment Criteria)

• Produce Alignment Procedure

(Installation Sequence, Methods, …)

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Propulsion Shaft Alignment
Procedures
Pointers
- Alignment of Cardan Shaft Yokes (Equal Angles)
- Alignment of Main Engine to Z-Drive
Optical Laser / Wire
- Rough Alignment of Lineshaft Bearings and Foundations
Gap and Sag
- Not usually used for these systems
Jack-Up Load Test
- Independent Check on Strain Gauge Results
- Check on Stub Shaft Bearing Loads
Strain Gauge
- Final Alignment of Complete Installed System
- Vertical and Horizontal Loads
- Accurate estimate of bearing offsets (+/- 0.1 mm)

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Alignment Criteria
Description Value
“Pointer” Offset (Alignment of Main Engine to ±1 to 3 mm
Z-Drive and Cardan Shaft Yokes) (0.040" to 0.120")
Maximum Stub Shaft Offset ±0.5 to 1.0 mm
From Main Engine (Warm) (±0.020" to 0.040")
Max. Load on Bearings 9 to 27 kN
(2000 to 6000 lbs)
Min. Load on Bearings 1 to 3 kN
(225 to 675 lbs)
Max. Shaft Bending Stress 13.8 MPa
(2,000 psi)
Max. Bearing Offset ±0.13 mm
from Prescribed Position (±0.005")

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Vibration Criteria
Torsional Vibration
Alternating torque to be less than 25% of full power mean torque.

If feasible, avoid a shaft critical at maximum rated shaft speed for 1.0, 1.5, and
2.0 order vibrations.

Lateral Vibration

1st Natural Frequency > 230% of Max. Shaft Speed

Bearing Housing Vibrations < 10 to 32 mm/sec

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Torsional Vibration on Lineshaft

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Shaft Orbit Prior to Realignment

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Shaft Orbit After Realignment

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Case Study 1
• Offshore Supply Vessel – 2 x 1120 kW at 1600 RPM
• 3 Lineshaft Bearings. No Stub Shaft
• July 2001: High vibration at 1650 RPM.
• August 2001: Middle bearing seized, crack in roller
cage. Both bearings were replaced.
• September 2001: Middle bearing on port shaft running
at 220°F.
• October 2001: Middle bearing on port shaft running hot
and damaged. Bearing was replaced.
• January 2002: Aft bearing failed on starboard shaft.
Shaft journal damaged. Shaft and bearing replaced
LamaLo Technology Inc.
 Realignment
• January 14 to 15, 2002.
• Middle bearings raised over 2 mm
• Static bending stress reduced from 17 to 1 MPa
• Straight aligned to less than ±0.10 mm
• Two other vessels aligned prior to delivery.
• One other vessel realigned after catastrophic
failure of all bearings and shaft after 2 years of
operations (January 2003)

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Alignment Measurements
Port Shaft Bearing Load (kN)

Initial Realigned
Bearing Vertical Horiz. Vertical Horiz.
No. 3 6.5 0.2 3.5 -0.1
No. 2 -3.3 -0.1 2.5 0.0
No. 1 6.4 -0.1 3.6 0.1
Starboard Shaft Bearing Load (kN)

No. 3 6.0 -0.6 3.6 -0.5

No. 2 -2.1 1.3 2.6 0.8
No. 1 5.6 -0.7 3.3 -0.3

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Case Study 2
• Thruster Tug: 2 x 1254 kW at 2000 RPM
• 7 Lineshaft Bearings. No Stub Shaft
• Sept. 2001: No. 1 Bearing Damaged
• October 2001: No. 1 & 4 Bearings Failed
• November 2001: Port Cardan Shaft Replaced
• December 2001: Realignment
• 2nd Vessel Realigned Prior to Delivery

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Realignment

• December 2001
• Bearings moved 0.75 to 0.50 mm
• Straight aligned to less than ±0.13 mm

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Case Study 3
• Thruster Tug – 2 x 1604 kW at 900 RPM
• 4 Lineshaft Bearings. 2 Stub Shaft Bearings.
• 2000: High vibration on Port Shaft
• 2000: Vibration measurement analysis recommended
additional stiffening
• 2001: 20 months later welds cracked on additional
stiffening.

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Realignment
• August 2002
• Realigned for Satisfactory Bearing Loads
• 2.54 mm hog in port shaft resulted in
excessive bearing vibrations
• Realigned port shaft straight
• Vibration levels acceptable
• Recommended removal of added
stiffening
LamaLo Technology Inc.
Original Bearing Supports

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Modified Bearing Supports

LamaLo Technology Inc.

Vibration Measurements
Vibration Level (mm/sec RMS)

Bearing Prior to After

Realignment Realignment

Port Stbd. Port Stbd.

No. 6 30 15 10 7
No. 5 15 15 7 7

No. 4 45 20 15 15

No. 3 5 5 5 5

LamaLo Technology Inc.

 Conclusions
• A number of bearing failures have
occurred due to misalignment
• Excessive vibrations can occur even if
bearing loads satisfactory
• Alignment criteria require bearings to be
positioned with ±0.13 mm.
• Incorporating strain gauge alignment in
procedures is an effective means of
preventing bearing failures.
LamaLo Technology Inc.
LamaLo Technology Inc.