I ACS History File +TB, Part A

Page 1 of 3

UR M53 Calculation of Crankshafts for I.C. Engines

Part A. Revision History

Version no. Approval date Implementation date
when applicable
Rev.2 (Jan 2011) 06 Jan 2011 1 Jan 2012
Rev.1 (Dec 2004) Dec 2004 1 Jan 2007
New (1986) 1986 -


Rev.2 (Jan 2011)

.1 Origin of Change:

Request by non-IACS entity (CIMAC)

.2 Main Reason for Change:

CIMAC raised the issue that the empirical stress concentration factors in the calculation
rules in the UR M53 do not cover some of the currently used crankshaft designs.
Therefore in order to assist, the alternative method for calculation of Stress
Concentration Factors in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite Element
Method was agreed.

.3 List of non-IACS Member classification societies contributing through the
TC Forum and/or participating in IACS Working Group:

None

.4 History of Decisions Made:

CIMAC submitted its proposal during the IACS-CIMAC (WG2) Sept. 2008 meeting. The
proposal was then discussed in the Machinery Panel. After reviewing the proposal the
Machinery Panel had comments which were later clarified by CIMAC. However the IACS
Machinery Panel had concerns with the extent of validation, as the validation was
made for one test previously and that no further validation data was available. After
further discussion it was agreed to insert it as an appendix and use it as an alternative
approach when the prescriptive method does not apply.

.5 Other Resolutions Changes

None

.6 Dates:
Original Proposal: September 2008 Made by CIMAC (WG2)
Panel Approval: September 2010
GPG Approval: 06 January 2011 (Ref: 10171_IGc)

Rev.1 (Dec 2004)

See TB in Part B.

New (1986)

No TB document available.


Part B

Page 3 of 3
Part B. Technical Background

List of Technical Background (TB) documents:


Annex 1 TB for Rev.1 (Dec 2004)

See separate TB document in Annex 1.



Annex 2 TB for Rev. 2 (Jan 2011)

See separate TB document in Annex 2.



Note: There is no separate Technical Background (TB) document for New (1986).

CIMAC Crankshaft Working Group (WG4)
Documentation and remarks to IACS WP/MCH comments
July 2. 2003, M. W. Rasser / Chairman
CIMAC Proposal for Revised M53
IACS WP/MCH Comments
Comments have been received from members and these essentially stem from
the need to provide technical justification for the changes and new requirements.
For the proposals to be accepted and incorporated as Unified Requirements we
have to provide a technical justification for the requirements and it is noted that
we have not received any additional technical documentation other than the 30
pages expanded from the original 15.
Identification of the changes and the background to each change and addition is
required as part of the technical justification.
Some comments received include:
1) Fig 5 and Fig 7
For crankshafts with overlap and recessed fillets, the web thickness W appears to
be taken at the outside of the web which is different from that indicated in Fig 5
for a crankshaft without overlap, where W is taken from the centre of the
recessed fillet.
CIMAC remark:
The definition of W for cranks with overlap is identical to M53-issue 1986, and is
taken from the outside of the web.
The definition of W for cranks without overlap is newly introduced, see Fig. 5.
The newly introduced definition of W is proposed based on the fact that all 2-
stroke manufacturers have crankshafts in operation for long time which do not
fulfil the M53 with respect to the limitation of TH (TH RH).
The proposal is therefore to define a reduced web thickness in such a way that it
ends at the centre of RH. The definition also matches the relevant cross section
more closely.
Part B, Annex 1
2) M53.2.2.2
Statement there are to be no barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 of
rated speed. It is not unusual to have barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of
>0.8 for the one cylinder misfiring condition in two stroke engines and it is
suggested that the sentence should be modified to read. There are to be no
barred speed ranges above a speed ratio of >0.8 for normal firing conditions.
CIMAC remark:
Agreed. The wording is included in the latest draft M53 revision.
3) M53.6
K factor for cast steel crankshaft (was 0.93) has been removed and replaced by
is to be agreed between engine manufacturer and the Classification Society.
No technical justification has been given about the inadequacy of the
previous value considering that semi-built cast steel crankshafts are widely
used. It is considered that a specific value should be established in the UR.
Also it is considered necessary to establish basic requirements regarding
fatigue testing of crankshafts or specimens and to include these in the UR.
CIMAC remark:
The K factor for cast steel cranks has been removed and replaced by the
comment on agreement between engine builders and Classification Society. The
wording was agreed between CIMAC and the IACS representative Mr. E.
Sandberg in a meeting held on 15/16 April 1999.
The reason for the modified wording was that the previous figure of 0.93 was not
considered realistic according to crankshaft manufacturer data. In current
practice only 2-stroke engines use cast steel cranks with special treatment (e.g.
stroke peening). Those engines never use the K figure, as given in UR M53
issue 1986, but get individual approval from Classification Societies.
The wording as proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since
many years.
Regarding the provision of alternative means of determining of fatigue
strength based on testing of specimens taken from a full size crankthrow it is
proposed a size correction factor should be established, or to develop
procedures for specimen testing in order to provide for a common basis of
acceptance of such fatigue test results.
CIMAC remark:
CIMAC see the development of a common basis for the acceptance of fatigue
test results outside the scope of the UR M53 revision. The wording in M53.6 as
proposed is now consistent with the procedures followed since many years.
4) M53.2.1.3
The calculation of alternating bending stress does not take into account
alternating axial stress. For crosshead type engines LR Rules take into account
axial alternating stress derived from forced-damped calculations.
The section includes a procedure for calculating alternating bending and
torsional stresses in outlet of oil bore. LR Rules do not publish a procedure but
require that a fatigue strength calculation or alternative fatigue test results may
be required to demonstrate acceptability of the design. Whilst no objection is
raised to the proposed approach its accuracy is crucially dependent on the
evaluation of the stress concentration for the oil hole. In the absence of a
detailed justification, LR would continue to require, perhaps as an alternative to
the proposed calculation method full fatigue analysis or experimental results.
5) M53.3
The dimensional ratio r lower limit is extended to 0.015, LR Rules limit this to
0.03. It is not clear on what grounds this extension is proposed.
CIMAC remark:
The discussion to extended the range of the parameter r from the current value
of 0.03 down to lower values dates back some years. Meanwhile technical
progress has obviated this range extension, as it is unlikely that modern
crankshaft designs show fillet radii with the parameter r below 0.03.
The latest draft M53 therefore goes back to the original range for the parameter
r with a lower limit of 0.03.
6) M53.4
These stresses indicate that the misalignment component considered is
10N/mm
2
and that for the crosshead engines, assuming the same level of
misalignment the axial component is 20N/mm
2.
LR would recommend that the value of 20N/mm
2
should be used only as
guidance where no axial vibration calculations are available. It is considered that
this value may be too high for a majority of systems operating away from axial or
torsional (cross coupled effect should be considered) natural frequencies.
CIMAC remark:
CIMAC agree with this recommendation, nevertheless the wording of the UR
M53 issue 1986 is carried over to the latest draft M53.
7) M53.8
The background to the expression in paragraph 8.2 is requested.
CIMAC remark:
Literature
Auslegung elastisch-plastisch beanspruchter Pressverbnde Author Franz
Gustav Kollmann published in "Forschung Ing.-Wes." Vol. 44 (1978) NR. 1, p.
1 11
DIN 7190 "Pressverbnde, Berechnungsgrundlagen und Gestaltungsregeln"
A reply to the points raised a copy of the development process for the proposed
changes that include technical justifications would assist in the final acceptance
of the proposals by the WP/MCH.
Norman Rattenbury
Lloyds Register of Shipping
26
th
September 2001
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
UR M53 REVISED EDITION
MAIN DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DECIDED WORDING DURING
CIMAC W.G. MEETING (15/16
th
APRIL 1999)
AND FINAL WORDING PRESENTED
IACS/CIMAC COMMON MEETING
(11
th
NOVEMBER 1999)

53.2.2.2. CALCULATION OF NOMINAL

ALTERNATING TORSIONAL STRESS
NEW TEXT IS ONLY CLEARER
ON DEFINITION, METHOD
AND USE OF METHOD.
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
PRESENTATION OF CIMAC W.G. C.D. WORK
DURING COMMON MEETING CIMAC/IACS
HELD IN OSLO 11
th
OF NOVEMBER 1999
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL
SYNTHESIS
WHAT WAS NOT CHANGED
- CALCULATION PRINCIPLE
- NOMINAL STRESS CALCULATIONS
- STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS CALCULATIONS
- FATIGUE STRENGTH FORMULA
- SHRINKFIT CALCULATIONS IN CASE OF SEMI-BUILT
CRANKSHAFT
- MINIMUM SAFETY COEFFICIENT FACTOR FIGURE
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 10/11/1999
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL
SYNTHESIS
WHY NO CHANGE ?
AFTER YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, PRESENT METHOD GIVES
GENERALLY PRETTY GOOD RESULTS ON THE SAFE SIDE.
IT MINIMIZES AMOUNT OF WORK.
IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON
UPDATED VERSION BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES.
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 10/11/1999
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL
SYNTHESIS
WHY CHANGES ?
IN ORDER TO HAVE A SAFER DESIGN OF CRANKSHAFT
(SAFETY FACTOR AROUND OIL HOLE).
IN ORDER TO BE MORE WELL SUITED TO NOWADAYS
CRANKSHAFT DESIGN (EXTENSION OF CONCENTRATION
FACTOR RANGE AND GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS OF
SEMI-BUILT CRANKSHAFT).
IN ORDER TO AVOID MISTAKE IN APPLYING THE U.R. BY
AVOIDING AMBIGUOUS DEFINITIONS.
IN ORDER TO OPEN THE U.R. TO ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES (SURFACE TREATMENT,
FATIGUE STRENGTH, F.E. CALCULATIONS, ).
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 11/10/1999
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL
SYNTHESIS
MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY PRESENTED
TO IACS AND DOCUMENTED
SAFETY FACTOR CALCULATION AROUND CRANKPIN OIL
HOLE (ONLY IN CASE OF DIAMETRAL ONE).
EXTENSION OF SOME CONCENTRATION FACTORS RANGE
(ONLY WHEN FEASIBLE ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS).
IMPROVED DEFINITIONS OF CALCULATION PRINCIPLE,
VARIOUS STRESSES AND STRESS CONCENTRATION
FACTORS.
(IN CONSISTENCY WITH ANALYSIS METHOD USED AT
CREATION OF PRESENT U.R.).
CLARIFICATION CONCERNING GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS
OF CRANKSHAFT.
(SPECIALLY IN CASE OF 2 STROKES ENGINES)
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 10/11/1999
UR M53
CIMAC PROPOSAL
SYNTHESIS
WHAT WAS IMPROVED SINCE OUR LAST
MEETING ACCORDING TO IACS/WP REQUESTS
MORE PRECISE DEFINITION OF EQUIVALENT
ALTERNATING STRESSES USED IN U.R.
THESE DEFINITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY 2 APPENDIXES
INCLUDED IN CIMAC PROPOSED TEXT :
- APPENDIX 1 FOR STRESSES IN FILLETS
- APPENDIX 2 FOR STRESSES AROUND OIL HOLE
NEW PARAGRAPH CONCERNING FATIGUE STRENGTH
OF CRANKSHAFT TO ALLOW AS AN ALTERNATIVE
CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY APPROVED EXPERIMENTAL
METHODS BASED ON SAMPLE RESULTS (AND NOT ON
FULL SCALE CRANKTHROW).
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
UR M53
IACS POSITION AFTER PRESENTATION
OF CIMAC UR M53 REVISED TEXT :
NEW PROPOSAL IS CLEARER AND DOES NOT NEED
MUCH INTRODUCTION AND SUPPORT INFORMATION.
SOME PRECISIONS AND MODIFICATIONS ARE
STILL ASKED TO CIMAC C.D. W.G.
DETAILED REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF
PROPOSAL IS REQUESTED TO EACH MEMBER
OF IACS/WP/MCH BEFORE END OF YEAR 2000.
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
Revision of Unified Requirements UR M53, Calculation of Crankshafts for Internal
Combustion Engines Task 8.
Mr. Bertrand, chairman CIMAC WG-Crankshaft Dimensions (CD) gave a presentation on the subject and
informed about the new CIMAC proposal for revised UR M53. It was emphasized that fundamental parts
had not been altered, but that weak areas had been improved and volume thus increased from earlier 15
pages to now 30.
In the presentation and the subsequent discussion the following was highlighted :
- The new proposal is clearer than earlier versions and do not need much introduction and support
information. However, when submitting the final proposal to WP/MCH, CIMAC was requested to provide
documentary evidence of :
(a) Specific reasons for individual requirement changes.
(b) That the changes have the full support of all associated manufacturers of 2 and 4
stroke engines.
- Current proposal is to be considered as a temporary proposal. Even when accepted and included in the
IACS UR, the work within CIMAC, aiming at further improvements, will continue in line with the technical
development.
- Shrink fit criteria are not covered by the current proposal. This is a task for future development/revisions.
- The new proposal is covering steel crankshafts, and is not suitable for crankshafts made from cast iron.
- It is important that criteria are well defined. GLs experience from last IACS audit clearly illustrated how
difficult it could be to explain to an auditor on what basis approval was made when not in compliance with
current UR M53.
- The new proposal (ref. top of page 4) have a paragraph which opens for the use of other criteria than those
given in the UR itself. A number of WP/MCHs members found this somewhat confusing and expressed that
lack of common minimum requirements, could involve that members in principle were free to accept designs
on a subjective basis. This could mean that we do not have Unified Requirements, but Unified
Recommendations. Is this considered sufficient for crankshafts ?
- With basis in above, it was considered mandatory that the UR M53 gave clear criteria/definition as to
what could be considered as equivalent methods . Accordingly, and upon request, Mr. Sandberg, DNV
produced a proposal for definition/interpretation of the term equivalent intended applied for the new
proposal to UR M53. The proposal with ref. to M53, page 4, amendment to 1.1 scope : . equivalence to
these rules, reads : Equivalence is understood as : No alteration in principles affecting non apparent
safety factors, i.e. the assumption of max bending and max torsion coinciding in time and position is to be
maintained together with the acceptability factor. Empirical methods as e.g. calculation of nominal
stresses, stress concentration factors, combination of stresses, fatigue strength, etc may be replaced by
more relevant methods of
It was agreed that :
0. Copy of the presentation given by Mr. Bertrand should be submitted WP/MCHs chairman (preferably in
electronic form) for distribution to the WP/MCH members. Status : Not yet received. Reminder is
hereby given.
1. All WP/MCH members should evaluate above definition together with the already distributed proposal
for revision of UR M53.
2. All WP/MCH members should perform a detail review of the proposal submitted (together with above
definition of equivalency) and revert with their comments to WP/MCHs chairman within end of this
year. In this respect due attention should also be paid to the language and terms used. (In some places,
translation to English (from French and German) have resulted in some unfortunate terms/wording,
which need to be evaluated and considered corrected, e.g. W is defined as second moment of area).
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
SHORT HISTORY OF UR M53
TECHNICAL EVOLUTION (1986 1999)
SEPT. 91 (PARIS) :
First discussions about oil hole safety factor calculation.
JUNE 92 (PARIS) :
Definition, then edition, of Basic Documents on
which are based the original version of UR M53.
Discussion on the range of validity for SCF parameters.
JUNE 93 (PARIS) :
Proposal for introducing plasticity criteria in shrinkfit.
Approval of oil hole method.
Approval of decisions concerning SCF parameters
extension range.
OCT. 94 (WINTERTHUR) :
Discussion about new definition for W and B.
Proposal for calculation of shrinkfit with plasticity.
JUNE 97 (PARIS) :
Approval of modification concerning W, B
and shrinkfit calculations with plasticity.
1/2
Annex to TB of UR M53(Rev.1, Dec 2004) 02/10/2000
JUNE 98 (COPENHAGEN) :
1
st
complete rewording of UR M53 incorporating :
* Oil hole safety coeff. calculation method
* Extension range of SCF factors
* Clear definitions of various parameters consistently
with Basic Documents
* Cancellation of proposed method about plasticity
effects during shrinkfit
1
st
discussion about future of UR M53
APRIL 99 (ST NAZAIRE) :
Definitive revision of UR M53 agreed by all W.G.
members with addition of :
* Appendix for clear explanation of SCF.
* Possibility of
DW
determination by alternative
experimental method.
State of art in crankshaft design presented by each
W.G. member.
OCT. 99 :
Presentation to IACS WP/MCH of previous revised
edition of UR M53 (with only one editorial
modification).
2/2
Part B, Annex 2


Technical Background for UR M53 Rev.2, Jan 2011

1. Scope and objectives

The present UR M53 does not cater for some of the current designs of crankshaft and
the Industry through CIMAC have proposed an alternative calculation procedure.

2. Engineering background for technical basis and rationale

The analytical method in UR M53 is based on empirical formulae developed from strain
gauge measurements of various crank geometries. Use of these formulae beyond any
of the various validity ranges can lead to erroneous results in either direction, i.e.
results that are more inaccurate than indicated by the mentioned standard deviations.
Therefore the FEM-based method is highly recommended and this Technical
Background is taken from the work undertaken by CIMAC.

The SCFs calculated according to the rules of this document are defined as the ratio of
stresses calculated by FEM to nominal stresses in both journal and pin fillets. When
used in connection with the present method in M53 von Mises stresses shall be
calculated for bending and principal stresses for torsion or when alternative methods
are considered.

3. Source/derivation of the proposed IACS Resolution

See Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009.

4. Summary of Changes intended for the revised Resolution:

See Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009.

5. Points of discussions or possible discussions

Proposal by CIMAC WG4 ST-08-044 dated 29.06.2009 was subject to extensive
discussion regarding the validity of the proposal. A major concern was the lack of far
reaching validation offered. It was for this reason that the proposal has been accepted
as an alternative only where the current prescriptive rules in UR M53 are out of bounds
and not as a means to replace UR M53 in its entirety.

6. Attachments if any

Proposal by CIMAC WG4 (IACS UR M53, Appendix III Guidance for calculation of
Stress Concentration Factors in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing Finite
Element Method
CO-ORDINATING WORKING GROUP
"CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES DIESEL"
(WG2)
Proposal by CIMAC WG4
ST-08-044 29.06.2009
IACS UR M53, Appendix III
Guidance for calculation of
Stress Concentration Factors
in the web fillet radii of crankshafts by utilizing
Finite Element Method
C ON S E I L I N T E R N A T I ON A L
DES MACHINES A COMBUSTION
I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O U NC I L
ON C O MB U S T I ON E N G I N E S
-2-
Index
1. General................................................................................................................ 3
2. Model requirements............................................................................................. 3
2.1. Element mesh recommendations..................................................................... 3
2.2. Material ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3. Element mesh quality criteria........................................................................... 4
2.3.1. Principal stresses criterion......................................................................... 5
2.3.2. Averaged/unaveraged stresses criterion................................................... 5
3. Load cases.......................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Torsion............................................................................................................. 5
3.2. Pure bending (4 point bending)........................................................................ 7
3.3. Bending with shear force (3 point bending)...................................................... 8
3.3.1. Method 1.................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2. Method 2.................................................................................................. 10
-3-
1. General
The objective of the analysis is to substitute the analytically calculated Stress
Concentration Factors (SCF) at the crankshaft fillets by suitable Finite Element
Method (FEM) calculated figures. The analytical method is based on empirical
formulae developed from strain gauge measurements of various crank geometries.
Use of these formulae beyond any of the various validity ranges can lead to
erroneous results in either direction, i.e. results that are more inaccurate than
indicated by the mentioned standard deviations. Therefore the FEM-based method is
highly recommended.
The SCFs calculated according to the rules of this document are defined as the ratio
of stresses calculated by FEM to nominal stresses in both journal and pin fillets.
When used in connection with the present method in M53 von Mises stresses shall
be calculated for bending and principal stresses for torsion or when alternative
methods are considered.
The procedure as well as evaluation guidelines are valid for both solid cranks and
semibuilt cranks (except journal fillets).
The analysis is to be conducted as linear elastic FE analysis, and unit loads of
appropriate magnitude are to be applied for all load cases.
The calculation of SCF at the oil bores is at present not covered by this document.
It is advised to check the element accuracy of the FE solver in use, e.g. by modelling
a simple geometry and comparing the stresses obtained by FEM with the analytical
solution for pure bending and torsion.
Boundary Element Method (BEM) may be used instead of FEM.
2. Model requirements
The basic recommendations and perceptions for building the FE-model are
presented in 2.1. It is obligatory for the final FE-model to fulfil the requirement in 2.3.
2.1. Element mesh recommendations
In order to fulfil the mesh quality criteria it is advised to construct the FE model for the
evaluation of Stress Concentration Factors according to the following
recommendations:
o The model consists of one complete crank, from the main bearing centreline to
the opposite side main bearing centreline.
o Element types used in the vicinity of the fillets:
- 10 node tetrahedral elements
- 8 node hexahedral elements
- 20 node hexahedral elements
o Mesh properties in fillet radii. The following applies to 90 degrees in
circumferential direction from the crank plane:
-4-
- Maximum element size a=r/4 through the entire fillet as well as in the
circumferential direction. When using 20 node hexahedral elements, the
element size in the circumferential direction may be extended up to 5a. In the
case of multi-radii fillet r is the local fillet radius. (If 8 node hexahedral
elements are used even smaller element size is required to meet the quality
criteria.)
- Recommended manner for element size in fillet depth direction
First layer thickness equal to element size of a
Second layer thickness equal to element to size of 2a
Third layer thickness equal to element to size of 3a
o Minimum 6 elements across web thickness.
o Generally the rest of the crank should be suitable for numeric stability of the
solver.
o Counterweights only have to be modelled only when influencing the global
stiffness of the crank significantly.
o Modelling of oil drillings is not necessary as long as the influence on global
stiffness is negligible and the proximity to the fillet is more than 2r, see figure 2.1.
o Drillings and holes for weight reduction have to be modelled.
o Submodeling may be used as far as the software requirements are fulfilled.
Figure 2.1. Oil bore proximity to fillet.
2.2. Material
UR M53 does not consider material properties such as Youngs Modulus (E) and
Poissons ratio (v). In FE analysis those material parameters are required, as strain is
primarily calculated and stress is derived from strain using the Youngs Modulus and
Poissons ratio. Reliable values for material parameters have to be used, either as
quoted in literature or as measured on representative material samples.
For steel the following is advised: E=2.0510
5
MPa and =0.3.
2.3. Element mesh quality criteria
If the actual element mesh does not fulfil any of the following criteria at the examined
area for SCF evaluation, then a second calculation with a refined mesh is to be
performed.
-5-
2.3.1. Principal stresses criterion
The quality of the mesh should be assured by checking the stress component normal
to the surface of the fillet radius. Ideally, this stress should be zero. With principal
stresses
1
,
2
and
3
the following criterion is required:
, , , ,
3 2 1 3 2 1
, , max 03 . 0 , , min o o o o o o <
2.3.2. Averaged/unaveraged stresses criterion
The criterion is based on observing the discontinuity of stress results over elements
at the fillet for the calculation of SCF:
- Unaveraged nodal stress results calculated from each element connected to a
node
i
should differ less than by 5 % from the 100 % averaged nodal stress
results at this node
i
at the examined location.
3. Load cases
To substitute the analytically determined SCF in UR M53 the following load cases
have to be calculated.
3.1. Torsion
In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV the
structure is loaded pure torsion. In the model surface warp at the end faces is
suppressed.
Torque is applied to the central node located at the crankshaft axis. This node acts
as the master node with 6 degrees of freedom and is connected rigidly to all nodes of
the end face.
Boundary and load conditions are valid for both in-line and V-type engines.
-6-
Figure 3.1 Boundary and load conditions for the torsion load case.
For all nodes in both the journal and crank pin fillet principal stresses are extracted
and the equivalent torsional stress is calculated:

\
|
|
|
.
|
=
2
,
2
,
2
max
3 1 3 2 2 1
o o o o o o
t
equiv
The maximum value taken for the subsequent calculation of the SCF:
N
equiv
T
t
t
o
o
,
=
N
equiv
T
t
t
|
|
,
=
where
N
is nominal torsional stress referred to the crankpin and respectively journal
as per UR M53 2.2.2 with the torsional torque T:
P
N
W
T
= t
Load:
Torque T
applied to
central node
Multi-point constraint:
All nodes of cross
section are rigidly
connected to central
node (=master)
y
x
z
Boundary
Conditions:
DOFs for all
nodes are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0
-7-
3.2. Pure bending (4 point bending)
In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV the
structure is loaded in pure bending. In the model surface warp at the end faces is
suppressed.
The bending moment is applied to the central node located at the crankshaft axis.
This node acts as the master node with 6 degrees of freedom and is connected
rigidly to all nodes of the end face.
Boundary and load conditions are valid for both in-line- and V- type engines.
Figure 3.2 Boundary and load conditions for the pure bending load case.
For all nodes in both the journal and pin fillet von Mises equivalent stresses
equiv
are
extracted. The maximum value is used to calculate the SCF according to:
N
equiv
B
o
o
o
o
,
=
N
equiv
B
o
o
|
|
,
=
Boundary
Conditions:
DOFs for all
nodes are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0
Load:
In-plane
bending by
moment M
applied at
central node
Multi-point constraint:
All nodes of cross
section are rigidly
connected to central
node (=master)
y
x
z
-8-
Nominal stress
N
is calculated as per UR M53 2.1.2.1 with the bending moment M:
eqw
N
W
M
= o
3.3. Bending with shear force (3-point bending)
This load case is calculated to determine the SCF for pure transverse force (radial
force, |
Q
) for the journal fillet.
In analogy to the testing apparatus used for the investigations made by FVV, the
structure is loaded in 3-point bending. In the model, surface warp at the both end
faces is suppressed. All nodes are connected rigidly to the centre node; boundary
conditions are applied to the centre nodes. These nodes act as master nodes with 6
degrees of freedom.
The force is applied to the central node located at the pin centre-line of the
connecting rod. This node is connected to all nodes of the pin cross sectional area.
Warping of the sectional area is not suppressed.
Boundary and load conditions are valid for in-line and V-type engines. V-type engines
can be modelled with one connecting rod force only. Using two connecting rod forces
will make no significant change in the SCF.
-9-
Figure 3.3. Boundary and load conditions for the 3-point bending load case of an in-
line engine.
Figure 3.4 Load applications for in-line and V-type engines.
The maximum equivalent von Mises stress o
3P
in the journal fillet is evaluated.
The SCF in the journal fillet can be determined in two ways as shown below.
Multi-point
constrai nt:
All nodes of
cross section
are connected
to a central
node (=master)
Load:
Force F
3p
applied
at central node at
connecting rod centre
line.
Boundary
Conditions:
Displacements for
master node are
fully restrained
u
x,y,z
=0;
= 0 (rotations
are free)
y
x
z
Boundary
Conditions:
Displacements in y
and z directions for
master node are
restrained
u
y,z
=0.
u
x
, = 0 (axial
displacement and
rotations are free)
Boundary Conditions:
Displacement in z direction
for master node is
restrained, u
z
=0;
u
y
, u
x
and = 0 (axial,
vertical displacements and
rotations are free)
-10-
3.3.1. Method 1
This method is analogue to the FVV investigation. The results from 3-point and 4-
point bending are combined as follows:
Q P Q B P N P
| o | o o + =
3 3 3
where:

3P
as found by the FE calculation.

N3P
Nominal bending stress in the web centre due to the force F
3P
[N]
applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see figure 3.4.

B
as determined in paragraph 3.2.

Q3P
=Q
3P
/(BW) where Q
3P
is the radial (shear) force in the web due to the
force F
3P
[N] applied to the centre-line of the actual connecting rod, see
also figures 3 and 4 in M53.
3.3.2. Method 2
This method is not analogous to the FVV investigation. In a statically determined
system with one crank throw supported by two bearings, the bending moment and
radial (shear) force are proportional. Therefore the journal fillet SCF can be found
directly by the 3-point bending FE calculation.
The SCF is then calculated according to
P N
P
BQ
3
3
o
o
| =
For symbols see 3.3.1.
When using this method the radial force and stress determination in M53 becomes
superfluous. The alternating bending stress in the journal fillet as per UR M53 2.1.3 is
then evaluated:
BFN BQ BG
o | o =
Note that the use of this method does not apply to the crankpin fillet and that this
SCF must not be used in connection with calculation methods other than those
assuming a statically determined system as in M53.