CRANK AND SCREW SHAFTS OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE

Scientific American Supplement, No. 717, September 28, 1889, by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here. CRANK AND SCREW SHAFTS OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE.

CRANK AND SCREW SHAFTS OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE.

By G. W. Manuel.

Being asked to read a paper before your institute, I have chosen this subject, as I think no part of the marine engine has given so much trouble and anxiety to the seagoing engineer; and from the list of shipping casualties in the daily papers, a large proportion seem due to the shafting, causing loss to the shipowner, and in some instances danger to the crew. My endeavor is to put some of the causes of these casualties before you, also some of the remedies that have tended to reduce their number. Several papers have been read on this subject, chiefly of a theoretical description, dealing with the calculations relating to the twisting and bending moments, effects of the angles of the cranks, and length of stroke—notably that read by Mr. Milton before the Institute of Naval Architects in 1881. The only practical part of this paper dealt with the possibility of the shafts getting out of line; and regarding this contingency Dr. Kirk said that "if superintendent engineers would only see that the bearings were kept in line, broken crank and other shafts would not be so much heard of." Of course this is one of those statements made in discussions of this kind, for what purpose I fail to see, and as far as my own experience goes is misleading; for having taken charge of steamers new from the builders' hands, when it is at least expected that these shafts would be in line, the crank shaft bearings heated very considerably, and continued to do so, rendering the duration of life of the crank shaft a short one; and though they were never what is termed out of line, the bearings could not be kept cool without the use of sea water, and occasionally the engines had to be stopped to cool and smooth up the bearing surfaces, causing delays, worry, and anxiety, for which the engineer in charge was in no way responsible. Happily this state of what I might call uncertainties is being gradually remedied, thanks being largely due to those engineers who have the skill to suggest improvements and the patience to carry them out against much opposition.

These improvements in many instances pertain to the engine builder's duties, and are questions which I think have been treated lightly; notably that of insufficient bearing surface, and one of the principal causes of hot bearings, whereby the oil intended for lubrication was squeezed out, and the metal surfaces brought too close in contact; and when bearings had a pressure of 200 lb. per square inch, it has been found that not more than 120 lb. per square inch should be exerted to keep them cool (this varies according to the material of which the bearing is composed), without having to use sea water and prevent them being ground down, and thus getting out of line. I have known a bearing in a new steamer, in spite of many gallons of oil wasted on it, wear down one-eighth of an inch in a voyage of only 6,000 miles, from insufficiency of bearing surface.

Several good rules are in use governing the strength of shafts, which treat of the diameter of the bearings only and angles of the cranks; and the engine builder, along with the ship owner, has been chary of increasing the surfaces by lengthening the bearings; for to do this means increase of space taken up fore and aft the vessel, besides additional weight of engine. Engine builders all aim in competing to put their engines in less space than their rivals, giving same power and sometimes more. I think, however, this inducement is now more carefully considered, as it has been found more economical to give larger bearing surfaces than to have steamers lying in port, refitting a crank shaft, along with the consequences of heavy bills for salvage and repairs, also the risk of losing the steamer altogether. Proportioning the bearings to the weights and strains they have to carry has also been an improvement. The different bearings of marine engines were usually made alike in surface, irrespective of the work each had to do, with a view to economy in construction.

In modern practice the after bearings have more surface than the forward, except in cases where heavy slide-valve gear has to be supported, so that the wear down in the whole length of the shaft is equal, thus avoiding those alternate bending strains at the top and bottom of the stroke every revolution. Another improvement that has been successfully introduced, adding to the duration of life of crank shafts, is the use of white bearing metal, such as Parson's white brass, on which the shafts run smoothly with less friction and tendency to heat, so that, along with well proportioned surfaces, a number of crank shafts in the Peninsular and Oriental Co.'s service have not required lining up for eight years, and I hope with care may last till new boilers are required. Large and powerful steamers can be driven full speed from London to Australia and back without having any water on the bearings, using oil of only what is considered a moderate price, allowing the engineer in charge to attend to the economical working of both engines and boilers (as well as many other engines of all kinds now placed on board a large mail and passenger steamer), instead of getting many a drenching with sea water, and worried by close attention to one or two hot bearings all the watch. Compare these results with the following: In the same service in 1864, and with no blame to the engineer in charge, the crank shaft bearings of a screw steamer had to be lined up every five days at intermediate ports, through insufficient bearing surfaces. Sea water had continually to be used, resulting in frequent renewal of crank shaft. Steamers can now run 25,000 miles without having to lift a bearing, except for examination at the end of the voyage. I would note here that the form of the bearings on which the shafts work has also been much improved. They are made more of a solid character, the metal being more equally disposed round the shaft, and the use of gun metal for the main bearings is now fast disappearing. In large engines the only metals used are cast iron and white brass, an advantage also in reducing the amount of wear on the recess by corrosion and grinding where sea water was used often to a considerable extent.

Figs. No. 1 and No. 2 show the design of the old and new main bearings, and, I think, require but little explanation. Most of you present will remember your feelings when, after a hot bearing, the brasses were found to be cracked at top and bottom, and the trouble you had afterward to keep these brasses in position. When a smoking hot bearing occurred, say in the heating of a crank pin, it had the effect of damaging the material of the shaft more or less, according to its original soundness, generally at the fillets in the angles of the cranks. For when the outer surface of the iron got hot, cold water, often of a low temperature, was suddenly poured on, and the hot iron, previously expanded, was suddenly contracted, setting up strains which in my opinion made a small tear transversely where the metal was solid; and where what is termed lamination flaws, due to construction, existed, these were extended in their natural direction, and by a repetition of this treatment these flaws became of such a serious character that the shafts had to be condemned, or actually gave way at sea. The introduction of the triple expansion engine, with the three cranks, gave better balance to the shaft, and the forces acting in the path of the crank pin, being better divided, caused more regular motion on the shaft, and so to the propeller. This is specially noticeable in screw steamers, and is taken advantage of by placing the cabins further aft, nearer the propeller, the stern having but little vibration; the dull and heavy surging sound, due to unequal motions of the shaft in the two-crank engines, is exchanged for a more regular sound of less extent, and the power formerly wasted in vibrating the stern is utilized in propelling the vessel. In spite of all these improvements I have mentioned, there remains the serious question of defects in the material, due to variety of quality and the extreme care that has to be exercised in all the stages during construction of crank or other shafts built of iron. Many shafts have given out at sea and been condemned, through no other cause than original defects in their construction and material.

The process of welding and forging a crank shaft of large diameter now is to make it up of so many small pieces, the best shafts being made of what is termed scrap, representing thousands of small pieces of selected iron, such as cuttings of old iron boiler plates, cuttings off forgings, old bolts, horseshoes, angle iron, etc., all welded together, forged into billets, reheated, and rolled into bars. It is then cut into lengths, piled, and formed into slabs of suitable size for welding up into the shafts. No doubt this method is preferable to the old method of "fagoting," so called, as the iron bars were placed side by side, resembling a bundle of fagots of about 18 or 20 inches square.

The result was that while the outside bars would be welded, the inside would be improperly welded, or, the hammer being weak, the blow would be insufficient to secure the proper weld, and it was no uncommon thing for a shaft to break and expose the internal bars, showing them to be quite separate, or only partially united. This danger has been much lessened in late years by careful selection of the materials, improved methods of cleaning the scrap, better furnaces, the use of the most suitable fuels, and more powerful steam hammers. Still, with all this care, I think I may say there is not a shaft without flaws or defects, more or less, and when these flaws are situated in line of the greatest strains, and though you may not have a hot bearing, they often extend until the shaft becomes unseaworthy.

[Diagrams shown illustrated the various forms of flaws.] These flaws were not observable when the shafts were new, although carefully inspected. They gradually increased under strain, came to the outside, and were detected. Considerable loss fell upon the owners of these vessels, who were in no way to blame; nor could they recover any money from the makers of the shafts, who were alone to blame. I am pleased to state, and some of the members here present know, that considerable improvement has been effected in the use of better material than iron for crank shafts, by the introduction of a special mild steel, by Messrs. Vickers, Sons & Co., of Sheffield, and that instead of having to record the old familiar defects found in iron shafts, I can safely say no flaws have been observed, when new or during eight years running, and there are now twenty-two shafts of this mild steel in the company's service.

I may here state that steel was used for crank shafts in this service in 1863, as then manufactured in Prussia by Messrs. Krupp, and generally known as Krupp's steel, the tensile strength of which was about 40 tons per square inch, and though free from flaws, it was unable to stand the fatigue, and broke, giving little warning. It was of too brittle a nature, more resembling chisel steel. It was broken again under a falling weight of 10 cwt. with a 10 ft. drop = 12½ tons.

The mild steel now used was first tried in 1880. It possessed tensile strength of 24 to 25 tons per square inch. It was then considered advisable not to exceed this, and err rather on the safe side. This shaft has been in use eight years, and no sign of any flaw has been observed. Since then the tensile strength of mild steel has gradually been increased by Messrs. Vickers, the steel still retaining the elasticity and toughness to endure fatigue. This has only been arrived at by improvements in the manufacture and more powerful and better adapted hammers to forge it down from the large ingots to the size required. The amount of work they are now able to subject the steel to renders it more fit to sustain the fatigue such as that to be endured by a crank shaft. These ingots of steel can be cast up to 100 tons weight, and require powerful machines to deal with them. For shafts say of 20 inches diameter, the diameter of the ingot would be about 52 inches. This allows sufficient work to be put on the couplings, as well as the shaft. To make solid crank shafts of this material, say of 19 inches diameter, the ingot would weigh 42 tons, the forging, when completed, 17 tons, and the finished shaft 11¾ tons; so that you see there is 25 tons wasted before any machining is done, and 5¼ tons between the forging and finished shaft. This makes it very expensive for solid shafts of large size, and it is found better to make what is termed a built shaft; the cranks are a little heavier, and engine framings necessarily a little wider, a matter comparatively of little moment. I give you a rough drawing of the hydraulic hammer, or strictly speaking a press, used by Messrs. Vickers in forging down the ingots in shafts, guns, or other large work. This hammer can give a squeeze of 3,000 tons. The steel seems to yield under it like tough putty, and, unlike the steam hammer, there is no jarring on the material, and it is manipulated with the same ease as a small hammer by hydraulics.

The tensile strength of steel used for shafts having increased from 24 to 30 tons, and in some cases 31 tons, considering that this was 2 tons above that specified, and that we were approaching what may be termed hard steel, I proposed to the makers to test this material beyond the usual tests, viz., tensile, extension, and cold bending test. The latter, I considered, was much too easy for this fine material, as a piece of fair iron will bend cold to a radius of 1½ times its diameter or thickness, without fracture; and I proposed a test more resembling the fatigue that a crank shaft has sometimes to stand, and more worthy of this material; and in the event of its standing this successfully, I would pass the material of 30 or 31 tons tensile strength. Specimens of steel used in the shafts were cut off different parts—crank pins and main bearings—(the shafts being built shafts) and roughly planed to 1½ inches square, and about 12 inches long. They were laid on the block as shown, and a cast iron block, fitted with a hammer head ½ ton weight, let suddenly fall 12 inches, the block striking the bar with a blow of about 4 tons. The steel bar was then turned upside down, and the blow repeated, reversing the piece every time until fracture was observed, and the bar ultimately broken. The results were that this steel stood 58 blows before showing signs of fracture, and was only broken after 77 blows. It is noticeable how many blows it stood after fracture. A bar of good wrought iron, undressed, of same dimensions, was tried, and broke the first blow. A bar cut from a piece of iron to form a large chain, afterward forged down and only filed to same dimensions, broke at 25 blows. I was well satisfied with the results, and considered this material, though possessing a high tensile strength, was in every way suitable for the construction and endurance required in crank shafts.

Sheet No. 1 shows you some particulars of these tests:

In order to test the comparative value of steel of 24¾ up to 35 tons tensile strength, I had several specimens taken from shafts tested in the manner described, which may be called a fatigue test. The results are shown on the same sheet:

The latter was very tough to break. Specimen marked A shows one of these pieces of steel. I show you also fresh broken specimens which will give you a good idea of the beautiful quality of this material. These specimens were cut out of shafts made of Steel Co. of Scotland's steel. I also show you specimens of cold bending:

I think all of the above tests show that this material, when carefully made and treated with sufficient mechanical work on forging down from the ingot, is suitable up to 34 tons for crank shafts; how much higher it would be desirable to go is a question of superior excellence in material and manufacture resting with the makers. I would, however, remark that no allowance has been made by the Board of Trade or Lloyds for the excellence of this material above that of iron. I was interested to know how the material in the best iron shafts would stand this fatigue test compared with steel, and had some specimens of same dimensions cut out of iron shafts. The following are the results: Best iron, three good qualities, rolled into flat bars, cut and made into 4½ cwt. blooms.

Made of best double rolled scrap, 4½ cwt. blooms.

You will see from these results that steel stood this fatigue test, Vickers' 73 per cent. and Steel Co.'s 68 per cent., better than iron of the best quality for crank shafts; and I am of opinion that so long as we use such material as these for crank shafts, along with the present rules, and give ample bearing surface, there will be few broken shafts to record.

I omitted to mention that built shafts, both of steel and iron, of large diameter, are now in general use, and with the excellent machines, and under special mechanics, are built up of five separate pieces in such a rigid manner that they possess all the solidity necessary for a crank shaft. The forgings of iron and steel being much smaller are capable of more careful treatment in the process of manufacture. These shafts, for large mail steamers, when coupled up, are 35 feet long, and weigh 45 tons. They require to be carefully coupled, some makers finishing the bearings in the lathe, others depend on the excellence of their work in each piece, and finish each complete. To insure the correct centering of these large shafts, I have had 6 in. dia. recesses ¾ inch deep turned out of each coupling to one gauge and made to fit one disk. Duplicate disks are then fitted in each coupling, and the centering is preserved, and should a spare piece be ever required, there is no trouble to couple correctly on board the steamer.

The propeller shaft is generally made of iron, and if made not less than the Board of Trade rules as regards diameter, of the best iron, and the gun metal liners carefully fitted, they have given little trouble; the principal trouble has arisen from defective fitting of the propeller boss. This shaft working in sea water, though running in lignum vitæ bearings, has a considerable wear down at the outer bearings in four or five years, and the shaft gets out of line. This wear has been lessened considerably by fitting the wood so that the grain is endway to the shaft, and with sufficient bearing surface these bearings have not required lining up for nine years. It is, however, a shaft that cannot be inspected except when in dry dock, and has to be disconnected from the propeller, and drawn inside for examination at periods suggested by experience. Serious accidents have occurred through want of attention to the examination of this shaft; when working in salt water, with liners of gun metal, galvanic action ensues, and extensive corrosion takes place in the iron at the ends of the brass liners, more especially if they are faced up at right angles to the shaft. Some engineers have the uncovered part of the shaft between the liners, inside the tube, protected against the sea water by winding over it tarred line. As this may give out and cause some trouble, by stopping the water space, I have not adopted it, and shall be pleased to have the experience of any seagoing engineer on this important matter. A groove round the shaft is formed, due to this action, and in some cases the shaft has broken inside the stern tube, breaking not only it, but tearing open the hull, resulting in the foundering of the vessel. Steel has been used for screw shafts, but has not been found so suitable, as it corrodes more rapidly in the presence of salt water and gun metal than iron, and unless protected by a solid liner for the most part of its length, a mechanical feat which has not yet been achieved in ordinary construction, as this liner would require to be 20 ft. long. I find it exceedingly difficult to get a liner of only 7 ft. long in one piece, and the majority of 6 ft. liners are fitted in two pieces. The joint of the two liners is rarely watertight, and many shafts have been destroyed by this method of fitting these liners.

I trust that engine builders will make a step further in the fitting of these liners on these shafts, as it is against the interest of the shipowner to keep ships in dry dock from such causes as defective liners, and I think it will be only a matter of time when the screw shaft will be completely protected from sea water, at least inside the stern tube; and when this is done, I would have no hesitation in using steel for screw shafts. Though an easier forging than a crank shaft, these shafts are often liable to flaws of a very serious character, owing to the contraction of the mass of metal forming the coupling; the outside cooling first tears the center open, and when there is not much metal to turn off the face of the coupling, it is sometimes undiscovered. Having observed several of these cavities, some only when the last cut was being taken off, I have considered it advisable to have holes bored in the end and center of each coupling, as far through as the thickness of the flange; when the shafts are of large size, this is sure to find these flaws out. Another flaw, which has in many cases proved serious when allowed to extend, is situated immediately abaft the gun metal liner, in front of the propeller.

This may be induced by corrosion, caused by the presence of sea water, gun metal, and iron, assisted by the rotation of the shaft. It may also be caused under heavy strain, owing to the over-finishing of the shaft at this part under the steam hammer.

The forgemen, in these days of competition and low prices, are instructed to so finish that there won't be much weight to turn off when completing the shaft in the lathe. This is effected by the use of half-round blocks under the hammer, at a lower temperature than the rest of the forging is done, along with the use of a little water flung on from time to time; and it is remarkable how near a forging is in truth when centered in the lathe, and how little there is to come off. The effect of this manipulation is to form a hard ring of close grain about one inch thick from the circumference of the shaft inward. The metal in this ring is much harder than that in the rest of the shaft, and takes all the strain the inner section gives; consequently, when strain is brought on, either in heavy weather or should the propeller strike any object at sea or in the Suez canal, a fracture is caused at the circumference. This, assisted by slight corrosion, has in my experience led in the course of four months to a screw shaft being seriously crippled.

I show you a section of a screw shaft found to be flawed, and which I had broken under the falling weight of a steam hammer, when the decided difference of the granules near the circumference from that in the central part conveyed to me that it was weakened by treatment I have referred to. I think more material should be left on the forging, and the high finish with a little cold water should be discontinued. Doing away with the outer bearing in rudder post is an improvement, provided the bearing in the outer end of screw shaft in the stern tube is sufficiently large. It allows the rudder post to have its own work to do without bringing any strain on the screw shaft, and in the event of the vessel's grounding and striking under the rudder post, it does not throw any strain on the screw shaft. It also tends to reduce weight at this part, where all the weight is overhung from the stern of the vessel.

[1] A paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers, Stratford, 1889.

About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books.

This book is part of the public domain. Various (2006). Scientific American Supplement, No. 717, September 28, 1889. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17755/pg17755-images.html

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.