DESIGN OF CONNECTING ROD FOR HEAVY DUTY APPLICATIONS PRODUCED BY DIFFERENT PROCESSES FOR ENHANCED FATIGUE LIFE

Tony George Thomas1, S. Srikari2, M. L. J Suman3 1-M.Sc.[Engg.] Student, 2-Professor, Department of AAE, 3-Senior Lecturer, Department of MME M.S.Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies, Bangalore 560 058

Abstract
The connecting rod forms an integral part of an internal combustion engine. The connecting rod is acted upon by different types of loads while undergoing its operation. One of the main reasons contributing to its failure is fatigue. The aim of this study is to redesign the connecting rod by incorporating the manufacturing process effects into the analysis and obtain a better fatigue performance. The redesign is aimed at reducing the weight of the component. Heavy duty applications connecting rod was selected for the study. The analytically calculated loads acting on the small end of connecting rod were used to carry out the static analysis using ANSYS. A stress concentration was observed near the transition between small end and shank. A piston-crank-connecting rod assembly was simulated for one complete cycle (0.02 seconds) using ADAMS to obtain the loads acting on small end of connecting rod. This force vs. time graph was converted into an equivalent stress vs. time graph. This stress vs. time graph was used as loading graph for fe-safe. The fatigue life calculated using fe-safe is 6.94106 cycles and these results are validated with the help of Palmgren-Miner linear damage rule. The fatigue life of connecting rod can be further enhanced by incorporating manufacturing process effects in the analysis stage. Fatigue life was estimated by incorporating the shot peening process effects. An in-plane residual stress for the selected surface elements were applied for obtaining the beneficial effect of shot peening. There was an increment of 72% in fatigue life cycles). We concude that shot peening can significantly increase the fatigue life of a connecting rod component Keywords: Fatigue Analysis, Compressive Residual Stress, Shot Peening, Surface Cracks Nomenclature AISI American Institute of Iron and Steel CAD Computer Aided Design CG Center of Gravity FOS Factor of Safety Kf Fatigue Strength Reduction Factor Kt Stress Concentration Factor LS Load Step q Notch Sensitivity Index Alternating Stress Sa Mean Stress Sm Smax Maximum Stress Minimum Stress Smin TDC Top Dead Centre UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength 2D 2-Dimensional 3D 3-Dimensional In that point of view the location of the CG point of connecting rod lies more towards the big end. 1.1 Fatigue design requirement Connecting rod is acted upon by gas loads and inertial loads during its operation. The forces include gas forces due to combustion and inertia forces due to its own weight. In that point of view fatigue is an important parameter to be considered for estimating the life of the component. The magnitudes of inertia forces are constant but gas forces are varying in nature. Due to fluctuating nature of these forces the chances of component failure due to fatigue is very high. Thus fatigue is one of the significant factors to be taken into account while optimising an existing design. Fatigue in a component arises due to the following reasons [2]: Material defect Manufacturing defects Poor detailing of dimensions while designing Error in load calculation

1. INTRODUCTION
Connecting rod is an integral component of internal combustion engine and it is classified under functional component [1]. It acts as a linkage between piston and crank shaft. The main function of connecting rod is to transmit the translational motion of piston to rotational motion of crank shaft. The function of the connecting rod also involves transmitting the thrust of the piston to the connecting rod. Connecting rod has three main zones. The piston pin end, the center shank and the big end. The piston pin end is the small end, the crank end is the big end and the center shank is of Icross section. Connecting rod is a pin jointed strut in which more weight is concentrated towards the big end.

The possible zones of stress concentrations are the change in cross-section from center shank to small end, change in cross-section from big end to center shank and the center shank itself. The connecting rod is subjected to higher duty cycles and the forces acting on the connecting rod is also tremendously high. Connecting rod is being categorised as a functional component and the failure rate is very high during the

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

developmental stages. The failure statistics of functional components has been explained with the help of Figure 1 and the figure gives an idea that the percentage of failure during the developmental stages is 80 % [1].

transition between big end and shank. These transition zones are stress concentration zones since there is a change in cross-section.

Figure 1 Fraunhofer study on component failure [1]

Component failure due to fatigue arises due to improper material selection, fabrication defects, improper heat treatments, design errors and unexpected operating conditions. Failure of automotive component due to fatigue contributes to 24 % [2]. The statistics of components failure due to fatigue has been explained with the help of Table 1. Fatigue can be effectively tackled by giving attention to the process parameters.

Figure 2 CAD Model of connecting rod

Table 2 shows the specification of the engine in which connecting rod belongs to.

Table 2 Engine Specifications in which connecting rod belongs to

Parameters Bore Stroke Crank Length Maximum Power Maximum Torque Top Speed @idle Top Speed @full load Center-to-Center connecting rod length Peak firing pressure of the engine Nominal value of firing pressure Compression Ratio Dimensions 97 mm 128 mm 64 mm 155 hp@2500 rpm 630 Nm@1600 rpm 2875 rpm 2500 rpm 233 mm 130 bar or 13 MPa 120 bar or 12 MPa 18:1

Table 1 Fatigue failure statistics of power train components [2]

Fatigue Improper material selection Fabrication defects Improper heat treatment Design Errors Unexpected Operating Conditions 24% 37% 16% 14% 12% 9%

The connecting rod is being manufactured by different processes such as casting, powder metallurgy and drop forging. The process parameters used for these processes are different accordingly the residual stress levels inside component are also different. These residual stresses can be detrimental or beneficial to the fatigue performance of the component. Thus the life of connecting rod is evaluated by the type of process in which it is manufactured. Based on these assumptions the manufacturing processes effects have a tremendous influence on the fatigue life of connecting rod. The process parameters have to be further evaluated for enhancing the fatigue life of connecting rod. The previous practice of designing was to incorporate only the strength reduction factor and that will lead to low allowable design stresses. This practice leads to increased mass of the component. In this new methodology, fatigue performance of critical components are improved by incorporating process parameters in design phase that will lead to higher allowable stresses and weight also can be reduced by redesigning 1.2 CAD Model of connecting rod The geometric model designed using CATIA is given in Figure 2. The model shows a transition zone between small end and shank, center shank and a

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Experimental procedure involves modelling of connecting rod using CATIA software. Static analysis of connecting rod is done using ANSYS inorder to understand the fatigue locations in connecting rod. The maximum load acting on connecting rod was calculated analytically. The load thus calculated was used as an axial tensile force at the small end inorder to do perform static analysis of connecting rod. The transition zone between small end and shank was selected for this study. The force acting on the small end of connecting rod is a combination of gas forces and inertia forces. Forces on connecting rod small end = Gas forces Inertial Forces of piston (1) Gas forces are calculated using maximum gas pressure values taken from Table 2. The peak firing pressure for the engine is 130 bar and the same value is used for calculating the peak firing pressure acting on the piston surface. This peak firing pressure gets added up to the force acting on piston pin end. Gas force acting on the piston surface = Peak firing (2) pressure /4D2

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

Figure 3 Piston-crank-connecting rod assembly using ADAMS

where D is the diameter of the piston and pressure 130 bar = 13 MPa. Gas Force = 13 /4 (97)2 calculated for finding the total mass of the reciprocating parts. Total mass of the reciprocating parts = 0.502 + mass of the piston assembly and the Gudgeon pin Fp inertia force due to reciprocating parts = 5800.78 Mass of reciprocating parts = 18040.425 N Net force = Gas forces-inertia force of reciprocating parts = 96057.54-18040.425N = 78027.114 N The net force considered for performing the static analysis was 78 kN. This was applied as axial tensile force at the small end center of connecting rod. The loading graph required for performing the life calculations using fe-safe was obtained from ADAMS. A piston-crank-connecting rod was made using CATIA and simulated using ADAMS. The piston-crankconnecting rod assembly is shown in Figure 3. The force acting on small end of connecting rod for one complete cycle was obtained after simulating the piston-crank-connecting rod assembly. The loading graph obtained from ADAMS is shown in Figure 4.

where 97 mm is the effective surface diameter = 96067.54 N Inertia forces of piston = mp ap where mp is the mass of reciprocating parts and ap is the acceleration of reciprocating parts. This inertia forces due to reciprocating parts can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the reciprocating parts and the acceleration of the reciprocating parts. Mass of the reciprocating parts includes mass of piston, piston rings, gudgeon pin and small end of the connecting rod. Acceleration of reciprocating parts = r2(Cos +Cos(2/n)) (3) where r is the crank length and n is the ratio of connecting rod length to crank length and assuming that the maximum acceleration occurs corresponds to TDC position where the angle is 0 or 360. The second term in acceleration equation is neglected considering the length of the connecting rod as infinite and in that case the motion will approach to simple harmonic type. The aim of calculating these forces is to find the maximum force with respect to fatigue. The magnitude of angular velocity used for calculating acceleration of reciprocating parts is taken with respect to top engine speed which is 2875 rpm = 301.06 rad/s. So the acceleration is calculated as follows Acceleration of reciprocating parts = 6.4 (301.06) 2 = 580077.6 N/cm2 = 5800.78 m/s2 Let Mp be the mass of the reciprocating parts. The mass of piston, piston rings and gudgeon pin is known. The small end mass of the connecting rod is to be SAS

Figure 4 Loading graph obtained from ADAMS The connecting rod is discretized using tetrahedral mesh with an element size of 1.5 mm and the total number of elements used to discretize the geometry was 105441. The discretized geometry is given in Figure 5.

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

A force of 39 kN was applied at the small end since symmetric model was considered for analysis. The force application using ANSYS is given in Figure 7. 2.2 Static analysis results

Figure 5 Meshed model for connecting rod The element size specified in Figure 5 was 0.6 mm in order to capture the smallest dimensions. The total number of elements increased to18 lakhs with 0.6 mm. So the time required for solving the static analysis also increased. The fillets which were not relevant in fatigue analysis were removed from the geometry. This reduced the total number of elements required to discretize the geometry and analysis time also reduced. For further analysis symmetric model was considered and the total number of elements had reduced to 105441. The symmetric model considered for this analysis is given in Figure 6. 2.1 Static Analysis using ANSYS Static analysis of connecting rod was conducted in order to understand the fatigue locations. The constraints used for performing the static analysis were as follows. The big end of connecting rod was constrained for all degrees of freedom taking into account the reaction from journal bearings. An axial force of 78 kN is applied at the small end center by creating rigids. The model was also provided with symmetric boundary condition since half model is considered for analysis.

Static analysis showed a stress concentration at the transition zone between small end and shank. Stress concentration factor value at the transition from small end to stem is taken as 1.36 [7]. If the value of stress concentration factor at the small end and the notch sensitivity is known, it is possible to calculate the value of fatigue strength reduction factor Kf. The value of notch sensitivity factor (q) can be calculated using the equation given as follows. q= (4)

The notch sensitivity can be calculated from a plot of Neuber constant and ultimate tensile strength. is the Neuber constant and r is the notch root radius. Neuber constant is given in inches and exact value corresponding to the low alloy steel 4340 was calculated from the graph corresponding to ultimate tensile strength given in Figure 9.

Figure 6 Symmetric model with element size of 1.5

Figure 9 Plot of Neuber constant vs. UTS [4]

The ultimate tensile strength of the AISI 4340 material is 1700 MPa. So the Neuber constant is calculated corresponds to 247 ksi (UTS of 4340 steel). The value obtained is 0.02 inches which was substituted in the notch sensitivity factor equation to find the notch sensitivity factor. Notch root radius is 12 mm or 0.47 inches.

Figure 7 Force application using rigids

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

q=

= 0.82 the values of q ranges from 0 and

Table 4 Effective alternating stress corresponds to peak stress in loading graph without process effects
Smax, MPa 1083 647.401 647.401 647.401 647.401 991.575 Smin, MPa 36.994 36.994 332.949 332.949 36.994 36.994 Sa, MPa 523.003 305.201 157.261 157.261 305.201 477.291 Sm, MPa 559.997 342.197 490.175 490.175 342.197 514.281 S'f, MPa 780.6 382.11 220.92 220.92 382.11 684.19

unity. It is possible to find the value of Kf since the value of Kt and q are known. Kf-1=q (Kt-1) (5) Kf = 1.29 (Trend: value of Kf will be less than or equal to Kt ). Nominal stressKf will give the fatigue limit of the component at the transition zone between small end to shank. Nominal value of stress at the transition zone is 700 MPa so the fatigue limit at this transition zone can be calculated by multiplying this stress value with Kf as mentioned in paper 5. Fatigue limit at the transition is 7001.29 = 903 MPa. Since the fatigue limit at the transition was above the fatigue limit of material the expected life of component was finite. 2.3 Fatigue life calculation The stress values corresponding to peak forces are shown in Table 3. The maximum load acting on the selected connecting rod was 78000 N and the maximum elemental stress corresponding to this force is 1740 MPa. So the stress values in Table 3 were normalized with the peak stress corresponding to 78000 N. Normalizing the stress was done by dividing the stress values by 1740MPa.

The N in the previous equation is obtained from Smax and Smin values which are shown in Table 4. The life of connecting rod can be calculated once the value of effective alternating stress is found out from Goodman equation. The life of the component can be calculated using stress life approach and the equation for calculating the life is given below. N = 10-c/bLog(Sf')1/b (8)

where Sf' is the effective alternating stress and the values of c and b are calculated using the equation as follows. c = Log10(A) A=(S1000) /Se b = (1/3)Log10{(S1000)/Se}
2

(9) (10) (11)

Table 3 Stress corresponds to loading graph

Time sec 0 0.00375 0.00625 0.01 0.014 0.0187 0.02 Force N 59000 2000 35000 18000 35000 2000 54000 Stress Obtained MPa 1083 36.994 647.401 332.949 647.401 36.994 991.575 Normalized values MPa 0.6224 0.0212 0.372 0.19135 0.372 0.0212 0.569

The input values required for calculating the fatigue life using Palmgren-Miner rule are shown in the Table 4.

Table 5 Fatigue life corresponds to effective alternating stress

Smax, MPa 1083 647.401 647.401 647.401 647.401 991.575 Smin , MPa 36.994 36.994 332.949 332.949 36.994 36.994 Sa, MPa 523.003 305.201 157.261 157.261 305.201 477.291 Sm ,MPa 559.997 342.197 490.175 490.175 342.197 514.281 S'f, MPa 780.6 382.11 220.92 220.92 382.11 684.19 Estimated life, cycles 554694.74 366553150 5.311010 5.311010 366553150 1838540.23

The type of equation used was Goodman equation for calculating the fatigue life. This algorithm made use of the load graph shown in Figure 4. The Load graph shown in the above mentioned figure has maximum values and minimum values. It is possible to divide the whole cycle into 6 half cycles. The Goodman equation is as follows: (Sa/Sf) + (Sm/Su) = 1 (6)

where Sa is the alternating stress, Sf is the effective alternating stress, Sm is the mean stress and Su is the ultimate tensile stress Sm, Sa, the corresponding mean stress and alternating stress respectively can be calculated from the equation as follows. Sm= (Smax + Smin )/2 and Sa = (Smax Smin )/2 (7)

The mean stress, alternating and effective alternating stress are calculated and shown in Table 5 based on the load graph shown in Figure 4. The life of the whole component can be calculated by applying Palmgren Miner Linear Damage Rule. Table 6 life calculation w/o process effects Cycle No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Estimated Life, cycles 554694.74 366553150 5.311010 5.311010 366553150 1838540.23 Probability of Occurrence 1 1 1 1 1 1

The fatigue life obtained from fe-safe software was being evaluated by Palmgren-Miner Linear Damage Rule. This rule states that the fatigue failure is predicted when the sum of ratios becomes either 1 or 100% (n/N 1) [5].

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

The total life can be calculated using the Palmgren Miner linear Damage Rule. The probability of occurrence of each half cycle is shown in Table 6. It was assumed that the cycle 1 occurs once, cycle 2 occurs twice (since cycle 5 and cycle 2 has the same values), cycle 3 occurs twice (cycle 3 and cycle 4 has the same value) and cycle 6 occurs once during the entire block loading. Applying Miners rule based on this assumption to calculate the life of the component is written as follows ((n/N 1).) [5]: (1 / 554694.74) + (2 / 366553150) + (2/5.3110 ) + (1 / 1838540.23) 1 The estimated value of life can be calculated by taking the inverse of the answer obtained from above calculation and the fatigue life is 425531.9 cycles. 2.4 Fatigue life calculation using fe-safe without considering process effects The output file generated after solving the static analysis is of .rst type (results file) which contains all information about stress values. This file was further processed using fe-safe for calculating the life of the component. The input parameters required for fe-safe software are the loading curve, the rst file generated from ANSYS, material data file and the type of algorithm used. Loading curve for fe-safe can be an auto generated sine wave of amplitude 1 or stress value plot generated from force-time graph. The force acting on small end of connecting rod was simulated with the help of ADAMS software inorder to input the load curve for fe-safe. The equivalent stress loading graph, corresponding to force vs. time graph, developed for fe-safe is shown in Figure 10.
10

Fatigue life calculated using fe-safe software also shows a finite life of 6.94 106 cycles with a factor of safety of 0.975. The factor of safety obtained from fesafe is also less than 1 which means the part will be failing in design stage without considering the shot peening effect.

3. MANUFACTURING PROCESS EFFECTS INTO DESIGN

The process selected for analyzing the effect of manufacturing on components was shot peening. Shot peening creates a compressive residual stress on the surface. Due to these stresses there is a crack closure effect on the surface preventing the cracks to propagate from the surface. It is possible to achieve a compressive stress of magnitudes -250 MPa, -480 MPa, -660 MPa and -870 MPa on the surface of connecting rod made of AISI 4340 due to shot peening [6]. It is possible to superimpose the compressive residual stresses in design phase itself. If the peak stresses in the loading curve being superimposed with a compressive stress of -250 MPa, the expected behaviour will be a reduction in the stress and it may lead to an improved life. The effective stress loading graph due to shot peening is given in Figure 11. Superimposed values of stress shows a reducing trend and are shown in Figure 11. The mean stress and alternating stress values of new superimposed stress curve are required to incorporate the effect of shot peening on fatigue life. The mean, alternating and effective alternating stress corresponding to effective stresses due to compressive stresses are given in Table 8.

Figure 10 Loading graph for fe-safe The material properties for SAE 4340 steel is given as an input for calculating the number of cycles the connecting rod can withstand. The material properties specified are as given in Table 7.

Figure 11 Effective stress due to compressive stresses Table 8 Effective alternating stress due to superimposed compressive stresses
Smax MPa 833 397.401 397.401 397.401 397.401 741.575 Smin MPa -213.006 -213.006 82.949 82.949 -213.006 -213.006 Sa MPa 523.003 306.703 157.226 157.226 306.703 477.2905 Sm MPa 309.997 92.19 240.175 240.175 92.19 264.285 S'f MPa 640.15 324.28 183.09 183.09 324.28 565.14

Table 7 Material properties for fe-safe life calculations

Material Property Young's Modulus 'E' Poisson's ratio Yield Strength Ultimate tensile strength SN Curve Values S1000 Se Magnitude 2.1105 MPa 0.3 1200 MPa 1700 MPa 0.9Su = 0.91700=1530 MPa 0.5Su = 700 MPa

The peak stress values had reduced due to the superimposition of compressive stress of magnitude -

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011

250 MPa on to the loading graph. The life corresponding to peak stress values are given in Table 9. The life of connecting rod after considering the shot peening process was also analytically calculated using stress-life approach (using effective alternating stress from Goodman equation). The fatigue life of connecting rod with the new superimposed pressure can be calculated by using Miners Rule. The life corresponding to maximum and minimum stresses in Table 8 are calculated using stress-life approach and given in Table 9. This estimated life given in Table 9 was the life considering shot peening effect.

[3] Ashok G. Ambekar, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Prentice-Hall India, 2007, NewDelhi, pp800-805. [4] R. C. Juvinall, Engg considerations of stress, strain and strength, Mc-Graw Hill, Newyork, 1967, pp141 [5] Stephans Ralph, Fatemi Ali, Metal Fatigue in Engineering, John Willey Publications, 1st edition, pp139-141 [6] M. A. S Torres, V. J. C. Voorwald, An evaluation of shot peening, residual stresses and stress relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel , published in International Journal of fatigue in the year 2002 Vol24, page 877-886 [7] CM Sonsino, Fatigue Design Principles for sintered steel components, Fraunhofer Institute of Structural Reliability, published in the year 2005 Sep 29th pp497-515

Table 9 Estimated life of effective stress considering the effects of shot peening
Estimated Life (Cycles) 3366111.04 1.62109 2.941011 2.941011 1.62109 1.04107 Probability of occurrence 1 1 1 1 1 1

The fatigue life of connecting rod with the new superimposed pressure can be calculated by using Miners Rule. It was assumed that the cycle 1 occurs once, cycle 2 occurs twice (since cycle 5 and cycle 2 has the same values), cycle 3 occurs twice (cycle 3 and cycle 4 has the same value) and cycle 6 occurs once during the entire block loading. Applying Miners rule based on this assumption to calculate the life of the component is written as follows ((n/N 1)[5]: (1/3366111.04) + (2/1.62 109) + (2/2.94 1011) + (1/1.04107) 1 The estimated life calculated using analytical approach was 2.53106 cycles. The life calculated from fe-safe was 1.2107 showing an infinite life with a factor of safety 1.047 which means the shot peening reduced the surface tensile stresses and made the peak stress values within the allowable limit.

4. SUMMARY
The present work was aimed at evaluating the fatigue life of a heavy duty connecting rod under 2 different conditions namely without considering the effect of shot peening and with considering the effect of shot peening. Fatigue life was estimated by incorporating the shot peening process effects into the analysis. An in-plane residual stress for the selected surface elements were applied for obtaining the beneficial effect of shot peening. There was an increment of 72% in fatigue life cycles). We concude that shot peening can significantly increase the fatigue life of a connecting rod component. 5. REFERENCES [1] Vatroslav Grubisic, Fatigue Failure of Automobile components, Fraunhofer Institute of reliability, 12th Oct 2004. Tokyo, pp. 01-37. [2] Brian Leis, Harold Reemsnyder, Fatigue Design Handbook, SAE International, 3rd edition, Chapter4, pp67-113, AE-221997-Warrendale, PA, USA.

SAS

TECH Journal

Volume 10, Issue 1, May 2011