Design optimization of connecting rod in

heavy commercial vehicles

By
Sathish.R (79510144048)
Vivek.P (79510144059)
Sriram.M (79510144512)
Rajesh.R (79510144044)
Department of Mechanical Engineering.

External Guide
Dr. M.Sathya Prasad, Phd.,
Section Head, Adv Engg,
Ashok Leyland Technical Centre,
Chennai.

Internal Guide
Mr. R.Sathish Kumar, M.Tech
Assistant Professor,
TRPEC,Trichy.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to optimize and to reduce the weight of an automotive
connecting rod.

Austempered Ductile Iron (ADI) is chosen in the place of currently used forged steel, as ADI i
cheaper and lighter when compared to forged steel.
Forces acting on the connecting rod were computed using analytical method and ADAMS
software and then compared.
Static and Fatigue life estimation was done and compared with existing forged steel and
proposed ADI material on existing connecting rod design.
The design is then optimized using OPTISTRUCT solver for several iterations until achieving
the convergence.
The optimized designs were compared with existing connecting rod and the better design
is chosen based on stress, displacement.

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
LOADS ACTING ON CONNECTING ROD
Pravardhan Shenoy [1], a study was done to explore weight and cost reduction
opportunities for a production forged steel connecting rod. Here the tensile load
acting on surface area is taken as distributed over 180 degrees and compression force
over 120 degrees.

180

Tensile load acting over 1800

Engine Specification

12
0

Compressive load acting over 1200

- HINO BS 3 Engine
Engine type 6 cylinder Inline engine
Peak pressure - 120bar
Maximum speed 3250rpm
Weight of connecting rod 1.721 kg
Cylinder bore 104 mm

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
Three load cases were observed Vijayaraja [2] for FEA analysis of connecting rod.

Loads on Connecting Rod

1. Constrain the crank pin end for all degrees of freedom of the connecting rod and applying
compressive force distributed over 120 in piston pin.
2. Constrain the piston pin end for all degrees of freedom of the connecting rod and
applying load at crank pin end over 120.
3. Constrain the piston pin end for all degrees of freedom and applying tensile load at 180
at crank pin end.
4. Bolt pretension force applied on beam element to equalize the bolt tightening torque and
the bush pressure is given in small end of connecting rod.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
OPTIMIZATION
The basic principle of optimization is to find the best possible solution under given
circumstances.
Structural optimization is one application of optimization. Anton Olason[3] has done an
extensive work in optimization techniques. The type of optimization is basically branched into
three types - Size optimization, Shape optimization, Topology optimization.
Optimization process traditionally consists of the following steps.
1. A design is suggested.
2. The requirements of the design are evaluated with help of finite element analysis.
3. If the requirements are satisfied, then the optimization process is over. Otherwise, steps
1 and 2 are repeated where modifications are made and a new improved design is
proposed.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
OPTIMIZATION
Sizing optimization - The shape of the structure is known and the objective is to optimize the
structure by adjusting sizes of the components.

Sizing optimization- Structure of truss being optimized

Shape optimization - In shape optimization the design variables can be thickness distribution
along structural members, diameter of holes, radii of fillets or any other measure

Shape optimization

Topology optimization - In topology optimization the density is the variable and it takes a value
between 0 and 1

Topology optimization
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
HEAT TREATMENT OF ADI
ADI is produced by an isothermal heat treatment known as Austempering.
First step is heating the casting to austenitizing temperature in the range of 815-927 C.
Then holding the part at austenitizing temperature to get the entire part to temperature and
to saturate the austenite with carbon.
Quenching the part rapidly enough to avoid formation of pearlite.
Austempering the part at the desired temperature to produce a matrix of ausferrite

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

Heat Treatment of ADI

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ADI

This table shows a picture of mechanical properties of ADI and compared to forged steel[4].
MATERIAL
Forged
steel

Pearlitic
Ductile
iron

Grade
150/100/7
ADI

Yield Strength, Mpa

600

480

830

Tensile Strength, Mpa

790

690

1100

Elongation, %

10

10

Hardness, BHN

262

262

286

Impact strength, joules

175

55

165

Mechanical Property

Mechanical properties of ADI and forged

steel

6/3/15

Comparison of yield strength of ADI and steel

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW

Relative weight per unit yield strength

Relative cost of ADI per unit yield strength

Graphs shows that the relative cost and relative weight per unit yield strength is low when
compared to forged steel.

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LITERATURE REVIEW
ALLOYING ELEMENTS OF ADI
Element

Proportion

Carbon

3 to 4 %

Increases the tensile strength and helps in defect free Casting.

2.4 to 2.8%

It promotes graphite formation and decreases the solubility of carbon in

austenite. Silicon increases the impact strength of ADI and lowers the
ductile-brittle transition temperature

0.8%

Copper increases hardenability in ADI when added up to 0.8%. Copper

has no significant effect on tensile properties but increases ductility at
austempering temperatures below 350oC.

Nickel

2%

Nickel can be added to ADI up to 2% to increase the hardenability. For

austempering temperatures below 350oC nickel reduces tensile strength
slightly but increases ductility and fracture toughness.

Molybdenum

0.3%

Molybdenum is a hardenability agent in ADI, and may be required in

heavy section castings to prevent the formation of pearlite

Silicon

Copper

6/3/15

Effect

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

Rod Bushing

Rod Small End

PARTS OF CONNECTING ROD

I Beam (Shank)

Rod Cap
Rod Bolt
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

DYNAMIC LOAD ANALYSIS

INERTIA FORCES ACTING ON CONNECTING ROD

Acceleration of connecting rod is aA =

and aB= - r 2 (cos t + cos 2t)

Force acting on connecting rod crank end

FA = -mAaA
FA = mA r 2 (cos t + sin t )
Force acting on connecting rod at piston end

FB = -mBaB
FB = mB r 2 (cos t + cos 2t)
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

DYNAMIC LOAD ANALYSIS

Multi body Simulation Model built using ADAMS

Position of crank at 0 deg

Position of crank at 90 deg

Position of crank at 180 deg

Connecting rod was connected with the piston using rotational joint.
Crank was connected with the connecting rod with the help of rotational joint and then
separately connected with the ground with another rotational joint.
Translational joint was applied between piston and ground for sliding motion.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

Gas force, FG = p*(/4*d2) = 12000000*(/4*0.104) = 101938.39 N

Compressive load at Big End, Fmin BE = -FA + FG = -22970.078+101938.39 = 78968.31 N
Compressive load at Small end, Fmin SE = FB - FG = 9868.94-101938.39 = -92069.45 N
Crank
angle

FB (manual
calc)

(deg)
0

8581.68

14811.095

-6544.43

30

6686.27

11539.81

-8939.87

18253.1533
3
-24934.27

90
143
180
225
270
360

-2037.25
-4665.08
-4507.19
-4627.62
-2037.25
8581.69

-3516.08
-8051.44
-7778.94
-7986.78
-3516.08
14811.10

-6544.44
1288.08
6544.44
9255.23
6544.44
-6544.44

-18253.15
3592.59
18253.15
25813.86
18253.15
-18253.15

585
700

-4627.61
7710.38

-7986.78
13307.32

9255.23
-3911.43

25813.85
-10909.41

(N)

Accelera
tion at A
(m/sec2)

FA (manual
calc)

Accelerat
ion at
B(m/sec2)

(N)

FB
(ADAMS
)
(N)
14959.2
1
11655.2
1
-3551.24
-8131.95
-7856.73
-8066.65
-3551.24
14959.2
1
-8066.65
13440.3
9

FA
(ADAMS)
(N)
-18435.68

-25183.61
-18435.68
3628.52
18435.68
26072.00
18435.68
-18435.68
26071.99
-11018.50

Comparison of results with ADAMS

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

DYNAMIC LOAD ANALYSIS

Graph shows the inertia forces at Crank end (FA) and at Piston end (FB) computed by both
analytical method and Multi body systems (ADAMS).
Crank angle Vs gas force is shown in the other graph which shows the gas pressure on
connecting rod at every crank angle.
Maximum Tensile force
At piston end = 14631.7 N
At crank end = 25830 N
6/3/15

Bush pressure = 8.7 Mpa

Bolt pretension = 25000 N
TRPEC

Maximum compressive force

At piston
= 92069.45N
At crank end = 78968.31 N
REVIEW OF PROJECT

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

The element length was taken as 2 mm by considering the minimum thickness of profile.
Creating 2-D tria mesh
Checking quality of elements
Converting 1st order elements into 2nd order
Conversion of 2-D to 3-D elements
Connecting rod bolt is modeled using beam element and rigid element RBE2
The nodes and elements of connecting rod cap and body is connected using rigid elements

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF CONNECTING ROD BOLT

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Element Quality
Accuracy of the results is directly proportional to element quality. Hence the quality criteria were followed
strictly. The following measures are considered for mesh quality:
Mesh flow lines are maintained parallel to the edges for appropriate expression of the shape to capture the
boundaries of surfaces.
Washer was modeled at bolt locations for even distribution of loads
Even number of elements are maintained around holes.
Right angled triangles are used along closed curves for better expression of shape.
Quality criteria

Ideal value

Acceptable value

Warping

< 5

Aspect ratio

<5

Skew

< 60

Jacobian

>.7

Distortion

.7

Chord deviation

.1

Minimum angle

60

>20

Maximum angle

60

<120

6/3/15

Element quality of connecting rod FE model

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

LOADS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

For static analysis maximum compressive load due to gas pressure and maximum
tensile load due to inertia force is taken.
Bolt pretension is taken from the manufacturing manual[6].
Bush pressure due to interference is given in small end of connecting rod.

Compressive load

Tensile load

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

OPTIMIZATION
The aim of optimization was to minimize the mass of the connecting rod under the effect of a
load comprising the peak compressive gas load.
The scope of optimization is limited to the shank of connecting rod as the big end and small
end of connecting rod cannot be changed to make the model interchangeable

Design space

OPTIMIZATION MODEL OF CONNECTING ROD

Non design space

Topology optimization was used for the optimization problem.

The optimization is carried out using OPTISTRUCT solver.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

OPTIMIZATION

SYMMETRY ALONG XY AND YZ PLANE DEFINED IN

OPTIMIZATION MODEL

The symmetry planes are defined along XY plane and XZ plane

Several optimization objectives and constraints are tried to get the most feasible and optimized
model result
The optimization constraints that are used for different models are stress, volume fraction and
displacement.
The objectives that are used are minimize compliance, minimize maximum stress
The optimized model was cleaned up by adding and removing material by mere judgment.
6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

DISPLACEMENT AND STRESS PLOT ON EXISTING CONNECTING ROD

Displacement and Stress due to

compressive load

6/3/15

Displacement and Stress due to

Tensile load

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

DESIGN I

Objective Min compliance

Constraint volume fraction .7
6/3/15

DESIGN II

DESIGN III

Objective Min max stress

Constraint volume fraction .7

Objective Min compliance

Constraint volume fraction .7

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It is clear from the analysis results that the model I deforms more when compared to the
models II and III.
The displacement plots shown are that of the case where the crank end is constrained and the
load is applied at the piston end.

Design I

Displacement due to compressive force on

optimized models

Design II

6/3/15

TRPEC

Design III

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The existing design is made of forged steel which has yield strength of 545 Mpa, while
the optimized design is going to be made out of ADI, which has yield strength of 750
Mpa. This allows having relaxation in the maximum stresses for removal of material.
Among the three optimized designs, the maximum stress in models II and III are lesser
compared to the model I.
Design I

VON MISES STRESS DUE TO

COMPRESSIVE FORCE ON
OPTIMIZED MODELS

Design II

6/3/15

TRPEC

Design III

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Modal analysis was performed to compare the effect of material removal on the natural
frequencies.
Natural frequency compares the specific stiffness of the components.
Higher the natural frequency, higher the specific stiffness.
Design I
Existing design

502.8 Hz

Design model I

438.3 Hz

Design model II

526.8 Hz

Design model III

485.1 Hz

Design II

Design III

1ST ORDER NATURAL FREQUENCY

OF
DIFFERENT CONNECTING ROD
DESIGNS
6/3/15

Design
TRPEC

II

REVIEW
OFIII
PROJECT
Design

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In design I the mass reduction is 15%, stress is high and fatigue life is very less.
In design III the mass reduction is 13.5% and natural frequency of 1 st mode is high. But stress
is high.
Design II has 14 % weight reduction.
Among the three design, Design II is having nominal stress and fatigue life is high.
Thus design II is selected, which has a mass reduction of 14%
Buckling factor for the Design II is 5.1

Buckling

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FATIGUE LIFE ESTIMATION
Fatigue is a process which causes a premature failure or damage of a component subjected to repeated
loading.
To calculate the fatigue life and to find the strain life curve, Coffin-Manson equation is used.
Method that was followed to estimate the fatigue life is The stress and strain of every element in the connecting rod are obtained from linear static analysis.
The values are then tabulated and the change in strain for each element was obtained by assuming a
fatigue life of 107.
The critical element was picked by taking the maximum change in strain with the help of equation.
Then the actual change in strain that was obtained from linear static analysis is used to calculate the
maximum fatigue life of the connecting rod.
By assuming different values for life, -N graph can be plotted.

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Coffin-Manson equation is
When mean stress is considered
Where
u
E

850
210000

950
170000

-0.09

-0.09

-0.56

-0.56

0.09531

0.09531

2Nf

107

107

cycles

1336.27

1414.71

Mpa

0.2524

0.2127

0(critical element)

-121.348

-126

(critical element)

0.00085

0.00405

(from FEA result)

0.000848

0.001

Maximum Nf

1.5*1013

1.5*1013

6/3/15

Mpa
Mpa

b = 0.09

c = -0.56

- Cyclic strain amplitude

- Ultimate tensile strength
- Fatigue strength coefficient
Mpa

b - Fatigue strength exponent

- Fatigue ductility coefficient

cycles

c - Fatigue ductility exponent

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Critical elements of Existing model

Critical elements of optimized model

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This graph shows the comparison of -N curve of existing and optimized connecting rod. Both
the curves converge between 106 and 107 cycles.
Life of optimized model is more after converging which shows that the optimized model is
good at high cycle fatigue.
This fatigue life estimation is just based on materials, and further improvement on fatigue

STRAIN

strength shall be done in manufacturing process.

STRAIN LIFE
GRAPH

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Properties

Mass (grams) for

forged steel
Mass (grams) for
ADI

Existing conrod
(forged steel)

Optimized connecting rod

(Austempered Ductile Iron)
Design I
Design II
Design III

1721

1623

1634

1651

1557

1468

1493

1494

0.18

0.22

.20

.23

320

470

406.1

521.2

545

830

830

830

790

1100

1100

1100

Reduction in %

5.68%

5.01%

4.07%

Natural frequency
(Hz)

562.8

438.5

526.8

485.1

Displacement (mm)
Maximum stress
(Mpa)
Yield Strength
(Mpa)
Tensile Strength
(Mpa)

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

CONCLUSION
This model was chosen based on manufacturing feasilbility
The Austempered ductile material can be used instead of Forged steel
Thus the Design II with 4.01% weight reduction is chosen.
Fatigue life was found to be same for both existing and optimized and
the optimized model is having the required number of cycles.

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

A prototype model is to be made and tested using ADI

It is tested by running it in engine for 240 hrs, for endurance test
The connecting rod is make to run for 1,00,000 kms

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

References
1. Pravardhan S.Shenoy, 2004, Dynamic Load Analysis and Optimization of Connecting Rod.
2. Vijayaraja et al ,AVTEC Ltd, Finite Element Analysis of Critical Components of the 2.6L
Gasoline Engine.
3. Anton Olason, 2010, Methodology for Topology and Shape Optimization in the Design
Process.
4. Ductile Iron data for design engineer, section IV, http://www.ductile.org/, updated on
25.7.2011, revised by J. R. Keough.
5. Robert Norton, 2nd edition, Design of Machinery.
6. Ashok leyland, Manufacturing manual.
7. Julie A. Bannantine, Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue analysis

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT

CERTIFICATION

Thank
You

6/3/15

TRPEC

REVIEW OF PROJECT