Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
By R. M . C a s h m a n , ~ Member
The author discusses the various functions that marine machinery foundations may be
called upon to perform ,and develops theoretical considerations involved in their design.
In addition, specific examples of foundations for the more important ship components are
discussed and illustrated. A section on the attachment of components to foundations
is included. A bibliography of pertinent material available from other sources is attached.
723
724
PLAN
i
+
VI EW
/
(,
\,,
G --)-~-
--/
!
Gr-cT1ON ~,-,a.
SNELL
~ECTIM I5-~
2rr \ m /
cps,
m being the mass of the component and k
the stiffness constant of the foundation, or the
force required to produce unit deflection in the
direction of motion being considered, both in
725
pound-inch-second units. Damping can be ignored, since it is slight and its effect on natural
frequency is entirely negligible. I t is usually adequate to limit the investigation to linear modes in
the three principal planes; namely, vertical,
athwartships, and longitudinal, although rotational modes about one or more of these axes are
sometimes significant. If the base of the foundation is attached to comparatively rigid structure,
and no entrained water is assumed, it seems in
order to design for a natural frequency of about
twice the highest anticipated impressed frequency.
Then the calculated frequency can turn out to be
some 70 percent greater than the actual and the
tuning ratio (impressed frequency)/(natural frequency) will be about 0.85, corresponding to a
"magnification factor" of two or less in the
resonance diagram. This means that the strain
amplitude in the foundation will be limited to
twice the local amplitude of the ship's structure,
and for most cases this will be a satisfactory solution.
A type of foundation quite commonly used
for supporting small auxiliaries is the built-up
tapered pedestal, Fig. 1; it m a y be instructive to
go through a design procedure for this model.
Assuming that the bottom structure of the ship is
several times as stiff as the pedestal, which is
usually the case, the system m a y be idealized as a
simple mass and spri~lg.
The mass of the mounted unit should be augmerited by about one third of the pedestal mass
in recognition of the fact that there are no really
"weightless" springs. Its location is taken to be
the center of gravity of the unit, and the assump.tion is made that the characteristics of the pedestal
extend upward to that point. It then remains to
calculate k in each of the principal directions.
For the vertical mode, the stiffness constant for
the pedestal is that of a tapered column axially
loaded. This presents no particular difficulty and
is usually of little interest since most structures of
this type are amply stiff in the axial direction.
In the athwartship and longitudinal modes,
however, the deflection of a tapered cantilever
under a load at the free end is wanted. The exact
solution of this problem can be tedious and is
hardly justified by the degree of accuracy needed
for this case. Appendix I develops the concept
of an equivalent beam of constant section which
will have the same end deflection as the tapered
beam under the same load. This shows that, for
structures of these proportions, the equivalent
depth of web or width of flange m a y be called
0.7D + 0.3d, where D and d are the web depths or
flange widths at the built-in and free ends, respectively. In the case of built-up sections these
726
/TO
FOR bOLT
LOAD
<
TO FOUNDATION
i
SYNTHETIC R U B B E R ~
\ , < ,~'
~ONDED TOALLFAC,
E~~,~
727
Shock
Practically all of the available data on this
subject are of recent vintage, and their application
has been confined almost exclusively to naval vessels. The problem was first a t t a c k e d seriously
in the early stages of World War II, and research
since the end of the war continues to improve
knowledge of the subject. While this chapter is
far from closed, the present state of the art permits some valid conclusions to be drawn. For
a historical sunmmry and a discussion of fundamental principles, the reader is referred to the
first four chapters of [10]; a later and more detailed treatment of design problems appears in
[11]. Both references deal primarily with the
effect of shock on machinery components, which
is outside the scope of this paper; however, the
role of the foundation can be recognized and the
given data can be interpreted to suit it.
The interest of naval activities in shock is of
course prompted by the desire to achieve continuous plant operation in vessels of the fleet
despite underwater explosions near the hull, and,
more recently, nuclear explosions at some distance. As far as is known, there is no organized
effort to make shock resistance a criterion for
merchant vessels. However, reference [12] discusses possible improvements in merchant hull
design and concludes that the need for such measures is equivalent to the need for Civil Defense.
Without taking a position in this matter, it is
729
d1~ = ( ~ - e ) ( ~ )
O = O.OO3251'VR2NO
where
3I
W
J2
N
0
g
=
=
=
=
=
=
731
0 ls0/\7/
o.ll
where
0 = maximum angular velocity, rad/sec
0 = maximum assumed inclination of roll or
pitch, measured on one side of vertical, deg
T = period for a complete cycle, see
The other factors in the expression for the gyro
couple, given at the beginning of this section, are
of course functions of the component in question.
Thermal Deflections
Whenever the operating temperature of a component is different from the shutdown temperature, the tendency to thermal movement must be
dealt with. Solutions of this problem m a y use
any one or a combination of three fundamental
principles, as follows :
1 Rigid mounting, resulting in thermal stresses
in the component itself as well as in the foundation,
2 Flexible mounting, wherein the unit is essentially free to expand while the foundation
deforms, and
;3 Sliding mounts, wherein the unit is essentially free to expand without intposing loads on
the foundation.
The rigid-mounting concept is feasible only
where the temperature difference is small. In
the case of mild steel, for example, a bar restrained
in a perfectly rigid manner at both ends will reach
yield point at an increment of about 1S0 F, so
that the use of this solution is just about limited
to vessels containing saturated steam or water at
atmospheric pressure or less.
As between flexible and sliding mounts, the
former are gaining favor, partly as a result of the
increased use of welding but also because of inherent advantages. Among these m a y be mentioned the minimization of field machining work,
elimination of any maintenance except ordinary
structural preservation, and freedom from operating problems such as corrosion, galling and
seizing of sliding parts. Thus, while the provision
of sliding keys or slotted bolt holes is quite simple
from the design viewpoint, a few extra hours or
days spent on the design of a flexing foundation
732
(+)
A, 15
p
(-.~
D_
5TI2AIN
(+)
_ ___-_sx_ -
733
735
"Equivalent
E / E VA-II ON
SECTION
Fig. 4
D--d
andd~ = d + a x
12
and the m o m e n t at any point,
M~, = P x = E [ d'2y
~dx=i
(2)
Appendix 1
Development of
d2y _
Tapered Cantilever
12Px
dx 2
(3)
E t ( d + ax) 3
E t ( D -- d) :~
2c,2
..1
(~)
4PL a
]~lA 3
(5)
737
,
~'Y-
E L EVATIONI
!Y
[i
ELEVATION
d.~
=====~ ~
SECTION
:_I
L
Fig. 5
PLAN
(.Scc.-b,on sirnhar
D-d
A= I31oge(d)
3 ( D - d ) (23DD2- d ) ]
Fig. 6
Consider next a cantilever beam, Fig. 5, composed only of flanges, of constant area, and tapered
in depth in the same manner as in the previous
example. The flanges work together by fiat.
This of course is an abstraction but it is a useful
one for the purpose of this study.
Let the (constant) area of one flange be A and
let the depth taper be designated b y a, so that
g
D--d
--
L
and
dx = d + a x
(Yr)o -
A =
.3(D + d ) ( D - D
(11)
d) -- 6dlog,
(7)
2PL 3
3EA A2
from which
Ad, 2
5
Co Fit. 5)
--
D--d
L
and
P~ = E r x ~,d~
(s)
dey _
2P~
dx 2
E A ( d + ax) 2
(9)
dx 2
dx = d + a x
P x = E I ~ dx-
(l 4)
d2y _
2Px
dx 2
EtH2(d -Fax)
(15)
2PL 3
(y) o -
E A (D -- d) a
[2dlog~(;)
-F (D -- d)(DD -4-d) 1
(10)
(13)
10
05
--
Appendix2
-o
D
//\.
0.<a
~IG. 5,
0.7
_~ '~2.
[:LANGESONLYF~G.
0,4
6,
Dll2ECTIO~4
EQ (18)
OF- $~oc~
(24
OCo
Q8
i.O
Fig. 8
d
"U
Fig. 7
2PL 3
(y)o = EtH2(D _ d) 3
Let
I d 2 l o g ~ ( D ) 4- ( D - - d ) ( D 2 - - 3 d ) ]
(16)
(Yl)o --
2PL 3
3EtH2A
(17)
F r o m which
A=
(O
--
d) 3
3I(D--d)-(D--3d)-k-2
W=
N =
A =
L =
&=
E =
In an "ideal" foundation,
stability,
d2 l g ~ ( d ) l
WN
(18)
Each of the results (6), (12) and (1S) is plotted
in Fig. 7. For tapered cantilevers of all usual
proportions, and without violating the limits of
accuracy wanted in the solution of the problem at
hand, a n y of these rather cumbersome expressions
m a y be represented b y the linear function shown
on the diagram, whose equation is
A = 0.7D -t- 0.3d
(19)
where
- -
assuming column
q,
(20)
-~--. ~- ,
(21)
1 {NEg'y/'
F,, = ~ \ ~ /
(22)
F, = 90
, approx
(23)
739
intuitive reasoning, which would predict increasing difficulty in staying above a given natural
frequency with :
(a)
(b)
(;28)
Beam Mounting
T h e two cases illustrated will bracket m a n y of
the support systems to be found in practice. By
similar processes it can be verified t h a t in the case
of a component at mid-span of a simply-supported
beam of length L,
DIRECTION
oF s n o o t
~.
and at mid-span of a fixed-ended beam,
Fig. 9
In addition to the symbols used previously, let
= inertia of cantilever
c = distance from neutral axis to extreme fiber
By processes similar to those of the previous
example,
WNL
I/c
1 (k'y/'~
(24)
q&.
1 (3EIw)V2
(25)
1 (3NEgc~ 1/'
F~ = ~ \ ~ /
(26)
Appendix3
and numerically,
F~ = 156
(No)i~2
(27)
L
F r o m which it is seen t h a t the transverse dimension of the cantilever is also significant.
Equation (27) can be rewritten for a symmetri740
/ 150
- - L~"
/
~
!
PLEK
LINEI~
S T I F: !: E bl ~.~.
PLATE
=/
II
SE.CTiON
Fig. 10
LOAD
DEgLEGT~N
AND
DI/k G ~ A ~
Fig. 11
Nomencloture
R = lJ~ X
g
or
1.108k
(a.,~i.) v,
0.0214WOR 0 7 + y~),/~
~R 2
0.0214W0ey a n d K lit["
O.()2141'VOpx
1"j
T h e d e r i v a t i o n of i n e r t i a forces due to p i t c h i n g
is exactly similar; if T a n d Op represent, respectively, the full period of p i t c h in seconds and the
single a m p l i t u d e of p i t c h in degrees,
f[ = ().l)214WO,y a n d K = (LO214I,VORx
T p"
"F . ~
741
Appendix4
J)ec/I -
6Pc
t"
The column stress due to P is P / t , and combining all these terms, the maximum stress in the
bent portion A B is
e E t / 2 w h -t- dPe q_ P_
t2
t
where
e
E
t
w
h
P
=
=
=
=
=
=
Discussion
L. K. Losee, a Visitor: At the Bureau of Ships we
are currently making an intensive study of foundations and how their design influences the resistance of a ship to the effects of underwater
explosions.
M a n y ship structures can hardly be said to be
designed at all. To design against shock, then,
requires first the relationships between loads and
stresses be determined by some reasonably reliable analytical procedure. Once stress calculations replace sheer guesswork as a basis for scantlings, it is relatively easy to proceed from static
to dynamic loads. For example, if a step velocity
change is used as a measure of the loading, within
a Scientific and Research Section (Code 442), Bureau
of Ships, Washington, D. C.
742
disolacement (tons)
tons per inch innnersion
structure, should not give the reader an impression that machinery location is accomplished without consideration of foundation problems. Structural design must receive proper consideration
simultaneously with shaft lines, heads, piping,
and so on, so that the final arrangement will
represent the optinmrn combination and compromise of all factors.
In connection with the use of a variable-frequency oscillator to induce vibration, it may be
well to caution that 1he point of application of
the excitation will affect the performance of
complex structures and, therefore, requires
considerable thought and judgment to obtain
realistic results.
The calculation methods referred to in reference
[5] of the paper have some limitation in that
they assume planes of vibrational sym.metry which
do not always exist in actual practice. This
assumption has been made in order to perform the
calculations manually. Design organizations active in this field use a more general approach with
the aid of electronic computers.
The author states that if bearing,; nlust withstand shock, they will probably not be affected
adversely by gyroscopic forces which are usually
of lower magnitude. Possibly some consideration
should be given to the time intervals involved.
Shock loadings are of extremely short duration.
They will probably not cause loss of hTdrodynamic
film lubrication. The longer loading times associated with gyroscopic forces m a y result in
loss of the oil film for suflhcient time to cause
damage or failure in some borderline cases.
The author mentions that the aspect of the
stiffness-critical R P M curve is rather fiat for the
fundamental mode. A recent case showed 10
percent change in critical R P M for a 50 percent
change in stiffness. The relationship of spring
constants and masses for this particular system
appeared to result in a steeper slope than is norreal. Although in m a n y cases, this steeper slope
would not be significant, the subject design was
close to the acceptable limit and failure to account properly for the actual sti:einess of the
foundation was of concern.
The author states that it is not customary to
soften a foundation in an effort to reduce the
critical frequency. In addition to the reasons
mentioned by the author, it will generally be
found that an increase in the flexibility of the
foundation will result in an increased amplitude
of vibration at the main unit.
Appendix 4 furnishes information in connection
with a stiffened flex-plate arrangement. This
arrangement has often been used when the length
is large relative to the deflection. In cases where
743
2w
h
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.6
1.9
3.5
6.9
ity, ease of operation and maintenance of equipment, and the saving of weight and space. To
paraphrase an old expression, "satisfactory ship
arrangements are only as good as their foundation."
745
not relieve the turbine (a high-efficiency, highspeed, close-clearance machine subject to large
thermal swings) from the problem of supporting
a dead load of up to 3 times its own weight noranally and lnuch more during various transients.
For instance, it is not uncommon, in present
large ships to encounter 200,()00 lb or heavier
condensers working in conjunction with a 65,000lb turbine. I t appears quite reasonable to provide
a very large static structure with the relatively
small changes necessary to support a turbine.
I t is our feeling, borne out b y very successful
operation of m a n y m e r c h a n t and N a v y ships t h a t
the thermal m o v e m e n t s mentioned b y the author
are easily compensated for in alignment and t h a t
sufficient stiffness is relatively easily provided in
the supported turbine design. Further, the supported condenser design permits lower foundation
supports, closer to the vertical center of gravity of
the combined turbine-condenser unit.
Although it is agreed t h a t the high-strength bolt
and structural materials should be used with
discretion, it appears t h a t wider use could be
made of them since, in m a n y cases, a better design
and, sometimes, a reduction in cost could result.
The control of replacement bolts for these applications should be as careful, and should be no
more difficult than for high-temperature steam
bolting.
Discussion Al:stracts
In addition to the foregoing discussions, which
were submitted in advance and read at the meeting, there were several verbal discussions, which
are abstracted as follows :
C. L. Wright, Member, referred to the Bureau of
Ships program for analytical design of foundations
under shock loading, noting t h a t the Bureau intended to establish a project for extensive study
of the subject including full-scale trials.
He
added t h a t recent studies of discrepancies between
actual displacements of ships and estimated
weights have indicated t h a t foundations are contributing far more to the total weight of the ship
than was realized.
H. G a l l e , 4 Visitor, presented a composite discussion representing his comments and those of his
associates. While conceding t h a t the analytical
approach to foundation design is not only desirable
but necessary i.n submarine practice, he pointed
out t h a t the designer is oKen so circumscribed, b y
such factors as potential interferences and lack of
suitable p r i m a r y structure in the immediate
vicinity of the foundation, t h a t m a n y compromises
4 Portsmouth
746
N . I-I.
with ideal theory have to be accepted. He endorsed the preference stated in the paper for flex
plates over sliding mounts in submarines for an
additional reason; namely, t h a t sliding connections have been known to squeak, which is
undesirabIe from the point of view of noise emission. He noted an exception to the rule t h a t foundations are hardly ever built of anything but
mild steel, stating t h a t high-tensile alloy has been
used for certain flexing applications in submarines
where thermal stresses are high.
F. W. Wood, Associate Member, added to the list
of static loadings experienced by foundations in
submarines the following: (a) Forces due to
deformation of the hull under submergence pressure, noting t h a t the transverse bulkheads are
about the only elements of submarine structure
which retain their shape and location, and (5)
axial thrust on the line shafting due to the same
cause. He cautioned against the use of shock
mounts as a cure-all for a potentially resonant
condition, noting t h a t in some cases the shock
input to the component can conceivably increase
over t h a t which would be experienced in a rigid
mounting system.
S. Curtis Powell, Member, smnmarized the various approaches to the shock problem which are
now being studied and emphasized that, regardless
of the forms of a t t a c k being advanced b y the
separate activities concerned, all are attempting
to describe the same phenomenon. He felt t h a t
perhaps the fundamental problem was being magnified b y such duplication of effort.
E. H. McCallig, Member, deplored the circumstances which limited the author to describing
certain well-known types of apparatus only as
"cylindrical components." He considered this an
outstanding example of a policy which, b y isolating certain activities from our profession,
worked to the detriment of all. He noted that
digital computers could hardly be justified b y the
savings in piping length coming from use of a
machine program, and considered t h a t the value
of such eompnters was being over-rated in some
quarters.
Author's Closure
The volume and quality of the discussion has
fully justified the hope, expressed early in the
paper, t h a t we would hear from others who have
had experience in some of the specialized problems which could only be hinted at in a paper of
this tyFe. The author's thanks go to each and
747
748