Courtsey Kop-Flex

Emerson Power
Transmission Corp. ROTATING EQUIPMENT
JRM7.PDF

Flexible-element couplings:
How safe is safe?
Use these guidelines to help
evaluate disc and diaphragm designs
for turbomachinety

J. R. Mancuso, J. Zilbeman, J. P. Corcoran and

S, D’Ercole, Kop-Flex Power Transmission Products,
Baltimore, Maryland

D
evelopments in couplings have made the meanings
of safety factor and service factor (also application
or experience factor) more confusing. Many people
use service and safety factors interchangeably. There is an
Fig. 1. Typical modified Goodman diagram.
important distinction, however, and understanding the dif-
ference is essential to ensure a proper coupling selection
for a particular application.
Safety factors are used in the design of a coupling. Cou-
pling designers use safety factors because there are uncer-
tainties in the design. The designer’s method of analysis
uses approximations to model the loading and, therefore,
the calculated stresses may not be exact. Likewise, the
material properties such as modulus, ultimate strength
and fatigue strength have associated tolerances that must
be considered.
Today, with the use of such computational tools as finite
element analysis (FEA), stress analysis is generally capa-
ble of more accurate results than in the past. In addition,
the properties of the materials used in high performance
products are more controlled and better known. Therefore,
couplings designed today vs those designed twenty years ago
can indeed operate safely with lower calculated safety factors.
Also, the design factor for flexible-element couplings can be Fig. 2. Methods to determine factor of safety.
lower than gear couplings simply because the “safeness” is
more accurately predicted. Service factors, on the other hand, are used to account
The flexible-element (dry) couplings of today have stress for the higher operating torque conditions of the equip-
loading that is more easily determined. The stresses from ment to which the coupling is connected. In API 671, a
misalignment, axial displacement and torque are generally service (or experience) factor is applied to the normal oper-
more accurately known than with a gear coupling. Because ating torque of, for instance, a turbine or compressor. This
of the number of variables that affect their design (such as factor accounts for torque loads which are not normal, but
tooth form, surface finish, materials, temperature and which may be encountered continuously such as low tem-
especially lubrication), “life” and “safeness” are difficult perature driver output, compressor fouling, or possible
to evaluate for gear type couplings. vibratory torques. Also, service factors are sometimes used
Generally, torque is the most significant load contributor to account for the real operating conditions, which may
to the overall stress picture in gear couplings. The safety be 5 to 20% above the equipment rating.
fatigue factors of flexible-element couplings are generally Different service factors are used or recommended
not as affected by torque, because the failure mode in dry depending on the severity of the application. Is it a smooth
couplings is not very sensitive to torque during continuous running gas turbine driven compressor application or will
operating conditions. the coupling be installed on a reciprocating pump appli-
But how safe is safe? If the coupling designer knows all the cation? Also note that service factors should be applied to
loads and stresses, then a safety factor of one is sufficient. continuous operating conditions rather than being used
However, this is not practical. Later in this article, a discus- to account for starting torques, short circuit conditions,
sion of suggested acceptable numbers will be presented. rotor rubs, etc. Continued

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING/DECEMBER 1994 93


\ coupling. And sometimes service factors are used to account
Fig . -. ..,J., -.-- --lr . . . . J.
Fig. 4. Contoured diaphragm coupling.
Before we discuss “How safe is safe?” we will define (or
redefine) some terms:
Design and selection criteria terms
Factor of safety (F.S.) is used to cover uncertainties
in a coupling design; analytical assumptions in stress anal-
ysis, material unknowns, manufacturing tolerances, etc.
Under given design conditions the F.S. is the ratio of
strength (or stress capacity) to actual predicted stress; where
the stress is a function of torque, speed, misalignment and
axial displacement. A design factor of safety (D.F.S.) is the
factor of safety at the catalog rated conditions of torque,
speed, misalignment and axial displacement. It is used by
the manufacturer to establish the coupling rating, because
it is the maximum loading that the manufacturer says his
coupling can safely withstand. The factor of safety that
most would be interested in, however, is the factor of safety
at the particular set of application loads that the coupling
is continuously subjected to. We have defined this to be an
application factor of safety (A.F.S.). In fact, the application
factor of safety is the measure of safety which answers the
question “How safe is safe.2”. It is by definition a measure of
the “safeness” under actual operation.
Service factor (application factor or experience fac-
tor) (SF.) is normally specified by the purchaser (although
assistance is sometimes given by the coupling manufacturer).
It is a torque multiplier. It is applied to the operating torque
(called the normal operating point in API 671) of the con-
nected equipment. The service factor torque multiplier is
used to account for torque loads that are beyond the normal
conditions and are of a recurring nature. Couplings are gen-
erally selected by comparing the selection torque (S.F: X nar-
94 HYDROCARRON PROCESSING /DECEMBER 1994
mal operating torque) to the coupling’s maximum continu-
ous rating. Service factors account for conditions such as a
compressor fouling, changes of the pumped fluid (molecular
weight, temperature or pressure), or any other repetitive
loading conditions that may occur over lo6 revolutions of the
for the real operating conditions of the equipment, which
may be 5 to 20% above the equipment rating. Service fac-
tors should not be applied to account for starting torques, or
short circuit torques, although these conditions are some-
times stated as being a multiple of normal torque.
Endurance limit is the failure strength limit of a cou-
pling component subjected to combined constant and alter-
nating stresses. Beyond this limit the material can be
expected to fail after some finite number of cyclic loads.
Below this limit the material can be expected to have infi-
nite life (or a factor of safety greater than 1.0).
Yield limit (Y.L.) is determined by the manufacturer
to be the failure strength limit of a coupling component
that will cause detrimental damage. If this limit is
exceeded, the coupling should be replaced.
Coupling rating is a torque capacity at rated mis-
alignment, axial displacement and speed. This applies to
the ratings given below.
Maximum continuous rating (M.C.R.) is determined
by the manufacturer to be the torque capacity that a cou-
pling can safely run continuously and has an acceptable
design factor of safety
Peak rating (P.R) is determined by the manufacturer
to be the torque capacity that a coupling can experience
without having localized yielding of any of its components.
Additionally, a coupling can handle this torque condition
for 5,000 to 10,000 cycles without failing.
Maximum momentary rating (M.M.R.) is deter-
mined by the manufacturer to be the torque capacity that
a coupling can experience without ultimate failure, where
localized yielding (damage) of one of its components may
occur. A coupling can withstand this occurrence for one
brief duration. After that, the coupling should be inspected
and possibly replaced. (This is also sometimes called the
short circuit torque rating.)
Continuous operating conditions and factors of
safety. The diaphragm, diaphragm pack, or disc pack is
the heart of a flexible-element coupling and in general is
the most highly stressed component during continuous
operation. It must accommodate the constant (steady state,
or mean) stresses from axial displacement, torque and
centrifugal effects while also withstanding the alternating
(cyclic) stresses from angular misalignment and possible
alternating torques. Note that normally other components
of the coupling such as flanges, tubes and bolts are not
subject to the same magnitudes and types of stresses.
To analyze a flexible element and determine it’s (and gen-
erally the coupling’s) application factor of safety at different
loading conditions, it’s endurance limit must be determined.
The problem here, though, is what failure criteria should be
used to determine this limit. What assumptions are made
in combining the stresses? Once a criteria is selected, how
is the factor of safety determined? What is an appropriate
factor of safety for a particular type of coupling? There are
many “correct” answers to these questions, and generally
the choices are left up to the coupling manufacturers. There
is no industry standard in existence and, therefore, it is not
always easy to know “How safe is safe?”
Let’s consider the following load conditions and stresses
for a diaphragm coupling in a turbine driven compressor
application. (Note that the stresses represented below are
for illustrative purposes):
Condition Amount Stress (psi)
Torque 400,000 in.-lb 42,000 psi: constant, shear stress
Speed 13,000 rpm 12,000 psi: constant, biaxial stress
Axial
misalignment +/-0.120 in 35,000 psi: constant, bi-axial stress
Angular
misalignment kO.25” 17,000 psi: alternating, bi-axial stress
- Goodman Curve --IL Factor of safety 2.0
To calculate the fatigue factor of safety, there are four --O- Factor of safety 1.5 ^ Size # 12
i
c 1
basic avenues that must be taken: 1) Determine the basic,
normal stresses that result from the stated operating con- Fig. 5. Multiple diaphragm coupling.
ditions. 2) Apply an appropriate failure theory to repre-
sent the combined state of stress. 3) Apply an appropri- Table 1. Coupling comparisons
ate fatigue failure criteria to establish an equivalent mean, Type of High performance Contoured Multiple
and an equivalent cyclic stress from which to compare the coupling disc diaphragm diaphragm
material fatigue strength. 4) Calculate the factor of safety Maximum Continuous
rating
by making one of three assumptions regarding the manner Torque (in.-lbs) 426,000 415,000 640,000
in which you are most likely to see a stress increase. Speed (rpm) 11,300 13,000 10,000
First; the way in which the above stresses in this exam- Misalignment (degrees) 0.25 0.25 0.25
ple were determined are subject to evaluation. Various Axial (in.) +/-0.180 +/-0.125 +/-0.120
Coupling O.D. (in.) 13.94 13 12.94
methods may be employed to determine the normal stresses
Ultimate tensile strength 195,000 175,000 170,000
shown above. These methods include classical solutions, Endurance limit 68,000 88,000 90,000
empirical formulas, numerical methods and FEA. The Stresses at catalcg rating
accuracy of each of these methods is largely dependent on Constant stress (psi) 81,800 85,300 164,000
the loading assumptions made in the analysis. Alternating stress (psi) 19,600 16,700 20,000
Second, after calculating the fluctuating normal Design factor of safety
(D.F.S.) 1.41 1.48 1.2
stresses, they must be combined to provide an accurate Stresses at selection
representation of the biaxial state of stress by applying an points
appropriate failure theory. Many theories may be Constant stress (psi) 60,800 84,400 95,000
employed. The most accurate choice is generally a func- Alternating stress (psi) 19,600 16,700 20,000
Selection factor of safety 1.82 1.49 1.28
tion of material characteristics and the type of loading.
Stresses at operating
Among the failure theories that might be employed are: conditions
maximum principle stress, maximum shear stress and Constant stress (psi) 41,100 66,200 65,000
maximum distortion energy (von Mises). Alternating stress (psi) 19,600 16,700 20,000
Third, after an appropriate failure theory has been Application factor of safety
(A.F.S.) 2.00 1.76 1.65
applied, an equivalent constant, and an equivalent alter-
nating stress, must be determined by applying an appro-
priate fatigue failure criteria. The possible choices here assumptions, 1.61 under constant stress increase assump-
include: Soderberg criteria, Goodman criteria, modified tions and 1.44 under proportional increase assumptions.
Goodman criteria, and constant life fatigue diagrams. Now if we superimpose on the graph some of the other
Lastly, a fatigue factor of safety can be determined by fatigue failure criteria strengths (Fig. 2), the issue is further
comparing the equivalent stress to the fatigue failure complicated. There are different factors of safety possible,
strength. To compare the fatigue strength to the equivalent all from the same coupling at one operating point. In this
stress, an assumption must be made as to how the stress particular case, this factor can vary from 1.38 to 3.78.
increase is most likely to occur. Three choices exist: the Again, “How safe is safe?” Is 3.78 really safer than 1.38
increase will be constant (torque, speed, axial) cyclic (angle, in this application?
torsional oscillations), or a combination of constant and
cyclic (a proportional increase of all stresses and loads). Peak and maximum momentary conditions and fac-
In this example, we’ve combined the stresses using the tors of safety. Just like continuous torque ratings, there
distortion energy failure theory, and applied the modified are different ways to rate a coupling’s capability to handle
Goodman fatigue failure criteria to obtain combined mean noncontinuous peak torques or low frequency high cyclic
(constant) stress of 87,500 psi and a cyclic (alternating) torques. These can be caused by such things as motor star-
stress of 17,000 psi. The endurance strength is 88,000 psi, tups, short circuit conditions, compressor surges, or other
the yield strength is 165,000 psi, while the ultimate transient conditions.
diaphragm material strength is 175,000 psi. Some questions to ask are: What is the nature of the load?
Using a modified Goodman diagram (Fig.1 ), the con- Is it due to a synchronous motor start-up with hundreds of
stant and alternating stresses are plotted. ‘Ib illustrate the high torque reversals during a daily startup? Is it a single
effect that the assumed rate of stress increase has on the unidirectional torque induction motor driver application?
fatigue factor of safety, we have shown that the factor of As for the coupling, how much capacity above the max-
safety is found to be 2.59 under cyclic stress increase imum continuous rating is there before serious damage

RYDROCARRON PROCESSING/DECEMBER 1994 95

to the coupling occurs? Some couplings have a catalog
peak rating in the range of 1.33 to 1.5 times the maximum
continuous catalog torque rating, even though the cou-
plings can handle torques of 1.75 to 2.25 times before detri-
mental damage occurs. Some published ratings are only 10
to 15% away from a yielding limit. Which couplings can
handle these peak torques?
Once more we ask “How safe is safe?’
Service tatters. API 671 defaults to a I.75 service factor
which is to be applied to the normal operating torque.
Note: API cautions that if reasonable attempts to achieve
the specified experience factor fail to result in a coupling
weight and subsequent overhung moment commensurate
with the requirement for rotor dynamics of the connected
machines, a lower factor may be selected by mutual agree-
ment of the purchaser and the vendor. The selected value
shall not be less than 1.25. API does not address factors as
related to factors of safety on design. Therefore, it does not
ask or answer the question as to how safe a coupling must
be for an API 671 application.
Different coupling manufacturers treat service factors in
a different manner. For instance, when API 671 is not spec-
ified, some recommend or require a minimum application
or service factor of 1.5 be used. This service factor (some-
times mistakenly called safety factor), is used to account for
off normal point conditions of the connected equipment.
Most coupling manufacturers recommend service factors
for applications where API 671 is not specified. Some rec-
ommend higher values than others. Which one is right?
Once again we ask “How safe is safe?“.
Application Comparison. Table 1 and the figures give an
example of how high performance disc (Fig. 3) and con-
toured diaphragm couplings (Fig. 4) compare to a multiple
diaphragm coupling (Fig. 5) for a typical application.
The application compared is a gas turbine driven cen-
trifugal compressor where API 671 applies. The normal
torque condition is 18,500 hp at 5,000 rpm, and the axial
displacement requirement is +/-0.120 in., while the angular
misalignment requirement is 0.25 degrees.
The selection torque: T = (18,500 x 63,025 x
1.75)/5,000 = 408,090 in.-lbs
From Table 1, the coupling, which has a higher pub-
lished continuous torque rating (multiple diaphragm cou-
pling), does not have the highest factor of safety.
Recommendations. We now will answer the question
we have proposed so often throughout this paper, “How
safe is safe?”
We recommend the following standard criteria be adopted
to determine factors of safety that can allow one to prop-
erly compare couplings for a particular application. Below
is a list of our recommended minimum design factors of
safety for the various ratings to the appropriate limit.
For the factor of safety for maximum continuous raling,
we suggest that the factor of safety be determined using
the modified Goodman criteria (the most widely accepted
fatigue failure criteria for steel components). We further
propose that these factors of safety are to be calculated by
proportional increase in stress assumptions (Fig. 1). This
method gives the most conservative safety factor. Forpeak
rating and maximum momentary rating the factor of safety
96 HYDROCARRON PROCRSSING / DECEMBER 1994
is determined by the ratio of yield strength to the stresses
calculated at these ratings.
Note that the factors listed below are factors for rated
conditions only and that the factors for a particular appli-
cation (with or without service factors applied) can be
expected to generally be higher.
Coupling capacity Design factor Basis
of safety
Max. cont. rating 1.35 min Endurance
Peak rating 1.25 min Yield
Max. momentary rating 1.10
. min Yield
Finally, the values in the table are recommended as a
guide and do not reflect how good a job was done in deter-
mining and combining the stresses used to obtain them.
A certain level of confidence is required with each cou-
pling manufacturer based on experience with the product
and organization. a
The authors
Jon R. Mancuso is engineering manager of Kop-
Flex Inc., Power Transmission Products. He has
almost 30 years experience in the coupling field
and is author of many papers on couplings for var-
ious publications, societies and symposia. He is
also author of the book, Coupling and Joints
published by Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1985, and edi-
tor and author of several chapters in Mechanical
Power Transmission Handbook, published by Marcel Dekker. He
has been involved with many design, research and development
projects relating to couplings, and is co-inventor of several patents
with couplings and clutches. Mr. Mancuso graduated from Gannon
University with a BS in mechanical engineering, and has an MS in engi-
neering science from Pennsylvania State University He is chairing the
ASME Committee on Couplings and Clutches. In addition he is a mem-
ber of the AGMA Coupling Committee, and also serves on the 4PI
Committee on Couplings for Special Purpose Applications.
Joseph P Corcoran is turbo group team leader
for Kop-Flex, Inc. Power Transmission Products.
At Kop-Flex he is responsible for an engineering
group which selects, designs and processes
orders and inquiries for high performance cou-
plings mainly for turbomachinery. He has eight +
years of experience mainly with custom designed ? ’
couplings. His previous experience was as an
operations engineer responsible for two 80 ton per
day Union Carbide-Linde oxygen plants for the city
of Baltimore. Mr Corcoran has a BS degree in mechanical engineering
from the University of Maryland and is member of ASME and the
Vibration Institute.
Stave D'Ercole is a senior engineer for Kop-Flax,
Inc. Power Transmission Products. At Kop-Flex he
is responsible for the Advanced Product Group,
which selects, designs and processes special
orders and inquiries for high performance cou-
plings for turbomachinery. He has spent the last
10 years in the coupling field mainly with high
j speed equipment, for aircraft and turbomachinery
Prior to joining Kop-Flex, he worked with Lucas
e Aerospace for four years as a project engineer
where he worked with high speed flexible diaphragm couplings. Mtz
D’Ercole has a BSME from the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Jossef Zilberman is manager of research for
Kop-Flex, Power Transmission Products. At Kop-
Flex he is responsible for research and improve-
ments of existing products, and development of
new products lines, technologies and analytical
methods. He has 12 years of experience in the
coupling field including design, applications and
field experience. He also has three patents for
couplings. Mr. Zilberman has an MS degree in
mechanical engineering from the University of
Bucharest, Romania.