4.5 Article

Study on shaft alignment of propulsion shafting system depending on single reaction force supporting position of aft stern tube bearing

期刊

JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 1340-1357

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00773-021-00803-3

关键词

Aft stern tube bearing; Reaction force supporting position; Stiffness of reaction force supporting position

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The trend of increasing sizes of propulsion shafts and propellers in large-scale ships has made the shafts stiffer but less flexible, leading to an increase in bearing failure at the aft stern tube bearing. The alignment and positioning of the aft stern tube bearing are crucial factors in shaft alignment, determined by classification societies' rules and practical experience.
Trends of large-scale ships have seen propulsion shaft and propeller sizes increase. This has enabled shafts to have greater stiffness, yet has caused flexibility to lessen and induce bearing failure at the aft stern tube bearing. In general, shaft alignment is calculated and evaluated in accordance with classification societies' rule requirements. Especially, positioning reaction support and stiffness of aft stern tube bearing are based on the practical experience of shaft alignment. Therefore, in this study, to evaluate the feasibility of the reaction force supporting position and stiffness of the aft stern tube bearing as recommended by classification societies in shaft alignment, theoretical reaction force supporting positions for various ship propulsion shafting systems were examined and the differences were evaluated. The reaction force supporting position of the aft stern tube bearing provided by classification societies was evaluated and it was found that a propeller shaft diameter less than 600 mm is within the provided range. However, in the evaluated shafting system, a propeller shaft diameter of more than 600 mm tends to cause the ship to move to the forward side due to increased shaft stiffness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据