You are on page 1of 20

SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES
2013-36-0633
E




RAFAEL AUGUSTO DE LIMA E SILVA
Optimization Methods Applied to Automotive Connecting Rod
Mechanical Design
MARCO LCIO BITTENCOURT
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
The appearance of the ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that
copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is
given on the condition however, that the copier pay a
$ 7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107
or 108 of U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new
collective works, or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication.
Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted
SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.


No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2013 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily
those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is
available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE
Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE
Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through
SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 1 of 18
2013-36-0633
Optimization Methods Applied to Automotive Connecting Rod
Mechanical Design
MSc. Rafael Augusto de Lima e Silva
(1,2)
, Prof. Dr. Marco Lcio Bittencourt
(2)

1-ThyssenKrupp Metalrgica Campo Limpo, 2-Universidade Estadual de Campinas

Copyright 2013 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, the mechanical design of automotive connecting
rods is essentially guided by analytic calculations followed by
numeric methods to assess the stresses, displacements, contact
pressures, fatigue and buckling. The present work, applies an
alternative methodology based on the method of topology
optimization to design the connecting rod aiming mass
reduction. Two connecting rods designs were developed using
two different methodologies, which the methodology
considering the topology optimization generated a 3% lighter
connecting rod and with improved lubrication performance
when compared with the conventional design obtained from
the current design methodology.
Keywords: connecting, rod, mechanical, design, topology,
optimization
INTRODUCTION
The mechanical design of ICE components is essentially
guided by final customers requirements and by emission
laws. There is a notable trend of specific power increasing on
new engine developments following new vehicles releases.
This is obtained, usually by the combustion pressure increase
which results in undesirable side effects: NO
X
emissions and
component load increases. Moreover, some markets demand
low CO
2
emissions directly by customers and law
requirement, or even indirectly by the importance that
customers give to fuel consumption.
The side effects of specific power increase can be solved by
different engineering strategies. The NO
X
emissions are
usually solved by combustion improvement and after
treatment solutions as EGR and SCR. However, the CO
2

emissions are not attenuated by the same strategies, thus it is
pursued friction and mass reductions. Finally, the components
loading increase can be solved by the use of higher grade
materials and/or by components re-sizing. One can notice the
conflicting relation between the necessities of reduce
components mass to attenuate CO2 emissions while it is
critical to re-size the components in order to allow them to
have higher load capability.
The motivation of the present work is to deal with these
contradictory automotive industry demands by the use of
modern optimization tools in order to achieve more
competitive internal combustion engine components.
Internal combustion engines are composed by a sort of piston-
rod-crank mechanisms. The connecting rod primary function
is to provide the joint between the oscillating and the rotating
components, the piston and the crankshaft, respectively. Its
secondary function is to transmit the combustion load from the
piston to the crankshaft. Therefore, for the connecting rod
functions maintenance, it must support the stresses to ensure
the joint between the piston and the crankshaft, transmitting
the loads between them.
The most common assembly solution for internal combustion
engines is the use of a bolted joint in the connecting rod split
big end. The big end split was traditionally done by the
serration and machining of the joint surfaces, but since the
nineties the fracture split process is been applied in automotive
connecting rods [1, 13, 14].
Finally, this work objective is to perform two mechanical
designs of an automotive connecting rod to a Diesel internal
combustion engine for Heavy Duty trucks by the wide use of
optimization methods to reduce the final connecting rod mass.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Object of Study
The object of study is a fracture split connecting rod for future
Heavy Duty Trucks with new Diesel engine which
characteristics are listed on Table 1.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 2 of 18


Figure 1. Heavy duty Diesel connecting rod

Table 1. Engine data sheet
Current Future
Displacement 15L 15L
Cylinders 6 6
Bore 137mm 137mm
Stroke 169mm 169mm
Conrod Length 261.5mm 267mm
Rated Power 600hp@2100rpm 680hp@2100rpm
Peak Torque 2779N.m@1200rpm 3137N.m@1000rpm
Overspeed 2625rpm 2625rpm
Overspeed Peak 3150rpm 3150rpm
PCP 190bar 240bar
Oil Type SAE15W40 SAE15W40
Piston Mass 5.56kg 5.56kg
Pin Mass 1.70kg 1.70kg
Pin Diameter 64mm 60mm
Pin Length 85mm 92mm
Crank Diameter 94mm 106mm
Crank Sidewall 58mm 62mm

Materials used
The connecting rod mechanical design was performed using
the following materials:
- PTC Pro-ENGINEER WildFire4.0 CAD software;
- ANSYS Workbench Structural 12.0 Software;
- FE Design TOSCA Structure 7.1.1 Software;
- LINDO Systems LINGO 12.0 Software;
- MAGNA FEMFAT Basic 4.8 Software;
- AVL EXCITE PowerUnit 2011.2.
Project Requirements
The conrod design must fulfill the project requirements:
- Fatigue Safety Factor SF>1.1 After Statistical Factor;
- Mass m
b
<= 7.26 kg Piston and Pin Masses;
- Center of Gravity L
CG
< 1/3 L Conrod Length;
- Buckling Load XX P
crX
> 20F
C
Max Compression;
- Buckling Load YY P
crY
> 5F
C
Max Compression;
- Small End Press. PACP < S
Y
Conrod Yield Limit;
- Big End Pressure POFP < S
Y
Shell Yield Limit;
- Big End Oil Film MOFT > 3 Rq Shell Roughness;
- Equivalent Stress
eqv
< S
Y
Conrod Yield Limit;
- Split Joint Residual Pressure Pr > 1 MPa;
- Bolt Head Pressure P
K
< S
Y
Conrod Yield Limit;
- Bolt Fatigue Stress
a
< S
f
Bolt Fatigue Limit;
- Max Displacement u
max
< 0.5 mm;
.
Conventional Mechanical Design
The conventional mechanical design of connecting rods is
usually performed iteratively by the integration of CAD and
CAE tools as shown in Fig. 2. Similar methodology was
presented by [7] focused on fatigue analysis.

Figure 2. Conventional Methodology used on Conrods
Mechanical Design
New Mechanical Design
A new methodology for connecting rods mechanical design is
presented in Fig. 3, similar to the one discussed in [17] with
exception of new optimization loop after CAE procedures that
in the present work includes not only FEA, but also fatigue,
buckling and EHL analyses.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 3 of 18


Figure 3. New Methodology proposed for Conrods
Mechanical Design
Dynamic Loads
The dynamic loads are calculated by traditional formulation
according to [3] and [6]. It is performed an additional
coordinate transformation in order to have the loads according
to an inertial reference attached to the connecting rod. Two
critical conditions must be calculated for stress and fatigue
analyses:
- Rated Power of 680hp@2100rpm
- Continuous Overspeed @2625rpm

Additionally, two other conditions must be calculated for
connecting rod shank dimensioning:

- Peak Torque of 3137N.m@1000rpm
- Overspeed Peak @3150rpm

which force peaks can be estimated analytically considering
that the crank-angle is equal to 0 in these conditions.

The maximum compressive force is
( ) ) 1 ( 1
4
2 2
e
t
+ +
|
.
|

\
|
= R m D PCP F
p C

where PCP is the peak cylinder pressure, D is the cylinder
diameter, R is the half-stroke, is the angular speed, is the
R/L relation and m
p
is the piston and pin masses.

While the maximum tensile force is
( ) ) 2 ( 1 1
2 2
e e + |
.
|

\
|
+ + |
.
|

\
|
= R m
L
L
m R m
L
L
F
b
CG
p b
CG
T

where L is the connecting rod length, L
CG
is its CG distance
and m
b
is the connecting rod mass.
Figure 4. Conrod Dynamic Loads in Rated Power.

Figure 5. Conrod Dynamic Loads in Continuous Overspeed.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 4 of 18

Sizing
It is necessary to perform an initial material selection for the
connecting rod dimensioning. Knowing that the connecting
rod is to be fractured split, the indicated material is the C70
Steel developed by [13] and studied by [1] that gathered the
material data similar to the material data used in Table 2.
Table 2. C70 Steel data.
Youngs Modulus 200GPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
Density
7820g/cm
3

Ultimate Tensile Strength 900MPa
Yielding Limit 550MPa

I-Beam Optimization
The main dimensioning is related to the connecting rod shank
where is commonly used the I-Beam section (Fig. 6) which
planar properties are given by:
( )
( )
( ) h B h b H B I
B h b h B H I
bh h H B A
yy
xx
3 3 3
3 3 3
12
1
) 3 (
12
1
+ =
+ =
+ =

Figure 6. I-Beam section dimensions.
It is proposed the following optimization problem for the
dimensioning of this I-Beam section:
B b b
B B
H h
H H
I I
I I
A A a s
I
A
yy yy
xx xx
xx
s s
s s
s s
s s
>
>
>
min
max
max
min
0
0
0
) 4 (
: . .
min
min
min

which the minimum area and moments of inertia must be
defined from analytical fatigue and buckling model,
respectively, while the maximum dimensions must be defined
from an envelope analysis to understand the connecting rod
clearances in the engine according to [10] as well as its
manufacturing constraints.
The minimum required cross section area is defined from a
fatigue model considering constant mean stresses as
following:
: ) 5 (
2
) (
'
min
f
S
F F SF
A
C T

=
in which SF is the shank fatigue safety factor, F
T
is the
maximum tensile force over the entire engine running
conditions, F
C
is the maximum compressive force and S
f
is
the corrected fatigue limit defined according to [12] and [15]:
( ) ) 6 ( . . . . . .
var
'
f ious rel temp surf size load
S C C C C C C S
f
=

The minimum required moments of inertia of the section area
are defined from the buckling model described by [8]
considering one pivoted joint and buckling in two planes:
) 7 ( 10
10
2
2
12
2
2
12
min
min
E
L F NB
I
E
L F NB
I
C y
yy
C x
xx
t
t
=
=

in which NB is the buckling safety factor, L is the connecting
rod length and E is the elastic modulus of the material.
Bolts Sizing
The bolts sizing can be performed preliminary by the
following iterative algorithm:
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 5 of 18
1. Calculate maximum tensile force from maximum engine
speed - F
T;

2. Estimate the number of bolts to be used n;
3. Guess the bolt diameter d;
4. Calculate the Tensile Strength(S
R
) and Yielding Limit(S
Y
)
from bolts grades (8.8, 10.9 or 12.9);
5. Estimate the clamp load by:
) 8 (
4
75 . 0
2
d
S F
Y M
t
=
6. Calculate bolt stress by:
) 9 (
4 4
2 2
d n
F
d
F
T M
P
t t
o + =
7. Check if the bolt stress is acceptable;
If
R P
S > o , return to 3, else, finish
One important remark is that after the conceptual phase,
after the preliminary drawing is delivered, a design phase
starts and it is suggested to verify the clamp loads more
accurately according to [9] and [16].
CAD 3D Model
The connecting rod 3D model is prepared using any CAD
system, for instance, the PTC Pro-Engineer Wildfire4.0
software, to describe the geometry and calculate the mass and
its CG. It must be taken care to dimension the transition radii
from the shank to the ends of the connecting rod. It is
suggested to consider the maximum possible tangent radius in
each of these features in order to avoid stress notches on the
connecting rod. During this phase, it must be verified the
engine clearances by envelop analysis, mainly, to evaluate the
gap between the connecting rod and the cylinder liner at the
maximum Conrod angle according to [10].
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Finite element modeling is performed in ANSYS to evaluate
displacements, stresses, contact pressures, buckling and
fatigue performance considering the engine loads. There are
two main groups of FE models: one for big end analysis and
other for small end analysis. This separation is done because
the connecting rod is a component subjected to dynamic
harmonic loads that are different between the two ends of the
connecting rod: the small and big ends; this load unbalance
causes the connecting rod acceleration.
The finite element models are constructed with the following
assumptions:
1. Frictional contact model with gap in the crankpin/bearing
shell and piston pin/conrod;
2. Frictional contact model in the bolt head/cap, bearing
shell/conrod;
3. Rough contact model in the fractured joint face, i.e.: no
sliding DOF;
4. Bonded contact model in the bolt thread/stem, in the
engaged thread region;
5. No threads considered;
6. Symmetry of one half;
7. Small displacements;
8. Linear isotropic material models, i.e., no plasticity.
The connecting rod is meshed with second order 3D 10-node
tetrahedral structural solid elements SOLID187 [2]. Moreover,
the bolts, bearing shells and crankpin are meshed with second
order 3D 20-node structural hexahedral solid elements
SOLID186 [2]. Surface-to-Surface penetration contact models
are configured with the standard element CONTA174 and its
pair TARGE170 considering the asymmetric approach. In this
way, the contact results are available only for contact (master)
side with the CONTA174 elements, in this case, the cap of the
connecting rod, the bolt head, crank pin, bearing shells and
piston pin surfaces. The clamp load is modeled by using
pretension elements PRETS179 [2] in the region of the bolt
shank. The meshing strategy is carried out to better refine the
contact surfaces with the CONTA174 elements.
Big End FEA
The big end analysis boundary conditions showed in Figure 7
include the bolt clamp load of 91,600N and subsequently,
stepped compression of 287,348N from Rated Power and
71,174N from Continuous Overspeed on the crankpin, which
has also a displacement constraint to avoid rotation. The same
approach for tensile loads: stepped tensile of 65,418N from
Rated Power and 108,971N from Continuous Overspeed. The
symmetry boundary condition is applied and the small end
bore surface is rigidly constrained.

Figure 7. Big End BCs in Rated Power - Compression
(Left) and Tensile (Right)
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 6 of 18
Small End FEA
The small end analysis boundary conditions showed in Figure
8 include the external stepped compression of 317,221N from
Rated Power and 34,138N from Continuous Overspeed on
piston pin surface which has also a displacement constraint to
avoid rotation. The same approach for the tensile loads:
stepped tensile of 34,726N from Rated Power and 61,013N
from Continuous Overspeed. The symmetry boundary
condition is applied and the big end bore surface is rigidly
constrained.

Figure 8. Small End BCs in Rated Power - Compression
(Left) and Tensile (Right)
Linear Buckling FEA
Linear buckling analysis is performed with simplified
boundary conditions, considering 1kN compressive load
showed on Fig. 9. Rigid remote support and rigid remote force
are applied in the bores of the connecting rod considering its
overall length to evaluate the buckling. The first 5 buckling
modes are calculated.

Figure 9. Linear Buckling BCs
Fatigue Analysis
The numerically calculated stresses are post processed using
FEMFAT Basic calculation using modified equivalent stresses
in the critical plane criteria for constant mean stress. It is also
considered the following influence factors:
- Mean stress influence
- Stress gradient influence
- Surface roughness by FKM method
- Shot peen by FKM method
- Modified Haigh Diagram
- Statistical influence by Gauss for 99.999% reliability

The C70 Steel is modeled using TGL material generator, from
the properties listed on Table 2, resulting in the Haigh
Diagram (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Haigh Diagram
Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication (EHL)
The Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication analysis is performed
in AVL EXCITE PowerUnit software considering flexible
conrod body condensed to reduce the number of DOFs to
1069 DOFs and 357 nodes, being the CG described by 1 node
and 6DOFs, the small end bore by 28x7 nodes and 588DOFs
and the big end bore with 32x5 nodes and 480DOFs. The
combustion loads are applied in the flexible piston pin
described by 13nodes and 78DOFs and the flexible crank pin
is described by 5nodes and 30DOFs with predefined circular
motion. The flexible dynamics model shown in Fig. 11 will be
solved by Newton-Raphson time integration.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 7 of 18

Figure 11. Connecting rod flexible dynamics model
The connecting rod bearings are modeled by Reynolds
Equation with constant viscosity and temperature, joint type
EHD2 C-S [4]. The metal-to-metal contact is formulated by
Greenwood/Tripp Model assuming that the average summit
height is approximately half of the roughness. The Table 3
gathers all relevant data for EHL analysis.

Table 3. EHL input data
Small End Big End
-Structural Mesh 28 x 7 32 x 5
-Fluid Mesh 140 x 28 128 x 20
-Radial Clearance 0.05mm 0.03mm
-Housing Roughness 0.20m 0.20m
-Shaft Roughness 0.15m 0.20m
-Housing Young Modulus 200GPa 120GPa
-Shaft Young Modulus 200GPa 200GPa
-Friction Coefficient 0.15 0.10
-Oil Type SAE 15W40 SAE15W40
-Oil Temperature 130C 130C
-Oil Supply Pressure 1.10atm 4.00bar
-Oil Cavitation Pressure 0.10 bar 0.10bar
Initial Domain CAD 3D Model
The initial domain CAD 3D model showed in Fig. 12 is
prepared using PRO Engineer Wildfire 4.0 software to
describe the maximum possible volume that the connecting
rod can have limited to the engine clearances from an
envelope analysis according to [10].

Figure 12. Initial Domain 3D Model
Initial Domain FE Model
The initial domain is modeled by finite elements in ANSYS,
as shown in Fig. 13, considering symmetry. By limitation of
the topology optimization method, there will be only 1 FE
model instead of 2 models as described in FEA section. All
contacts will be modeled as well as the bolt clamp loads. Two
load conditions are imposed: tensile of 107,128N from
Continuous Overspeed condition and compression of
317,221N from Rated Power condition according to Fig. 14.

Figure 13. Initial Domain FE Model
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 8 of 18

Figure 14. Initial Domain BCs, Compression from
Rated Power (Left) and Tensile from Continuous
Overspeed (Right)
Topology Optimization
The topology optimization is performed in TOSCA Structure
7.1.1 using the classical formulation of minimum compliance
subjected to a volume equality constraint calculated from the
initial domain mass and the mass target, refer to [5] for theory
and other applications. Because the compressive load from the
Rated Power condition is 3 times bigger than the tensile load
from Continuous Overspeed condition, a weight of 2 its
applied in the strain energy of the Tensile BC solution, in
order to have this critical BC considered by the Topo
Controller optimizer based on the optimality criteria [18].
Shape Optimization
The shape optimization is performed considering FEMFAT
fatigue analysis to minimize the fatigue damage using TOSCA
with Shape Controller algorithm. The constraints will be only
related to the design variables, in order to keep the BC regions
and contact regions frozen to avoid un-convergence in non-
linear FEA solution.
RESULTS
Dynamic Loads
The maximum compression occurs in the Peak Torque
condition when the PCP is maximum of 24 MPa and is
104.72rad/s (1000rpm)
( )
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
|
.
|

\
|
=
267
5 . 84
1 72 . 104 0845 . 0 26 . 7 137
4
24
2 2
t
C
F
kN N F
C
345 344930 6 . 8856 3 . 353787 ~ = + =
The maximum tensile occurs during Overspeed Peak, when
is 329.87rad/s (3150rpm)
( ) e e +
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
|
.
|

\
|
= 1 1
2 2
R m
L
L
m R m
L
L
F
b
CG
p b
CG
T

kN N F
T
157 156948 2 . 113960 2 . 42988 ~ = + =
I-Beam Optimization
The bending fatigue limit of C70 steel was estimated
according to [12] by
MPa S
f
450 900 5 . 0 = =
The tension-compression fatigue limit was estimated from eq.
06 considering that the shank region is subject to shot peen,
therefore, no surface factor was considered:
( ) MPa S
f
315 450 . 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 7 . 0
'
= =
The connecting rod minimum cross section area was
calculated considering a fatigue safety factor of 1.5 according
eq. 05:
2
min
1195
) 315 ( 2
) 345000 157000 ( 5 . 1
mm A =
+
=
The minimum moments of inertia was calculated from eq. 07.
4 5
9 2
2
12
4 5
9 2
2
12
10 23 . 6
10 200
267 . 0 345000 5
10
10 49 . 2
10 200
267 . 0 345000 20
10
min
min
mm I
mm I
yy
xx
=


=
=


=
t
t

The optimization proposed in eq. 04 was solved in LINGO 12:
( )
( )
B b mm
mm B
H h
mm H
mm I
mm I
mm A a s
B h b h B H
bh h H B
yy
xx
s s
s s
s s
s s
>
>
>
+
+
4 . 6
32 0
0
48 0
10 23 . 6
10 49 . 2
1195 : . .
12 min
4 4
4 5
2
3 3 3

Resulting in the following:
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 9 of 18
4 4
4 5
2
10 . 50 , 9
10 . 90 , 2
1195
4 . 6
32
32 . 13
48
mm I
mm I
mm A
mm b
mm B
mm h
mm H
yy
xx
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Where it can be observed that the minimum relation of area to
moment of inertia was obtained when the main dimensions H
and B where in the maximum possible values while the minor
thickness b was in minimum value possible. One can realize
that the relief heighth can be dimensioned from the minimum
area constraint as following:
b B
A BH
h
b b
B B
H H

=
=
=
=
min
min
max
max

Bolts Sizing
The sizing of bolts was performed according the algorithm in
the Materials and Methods section:
1. F
T=
157000N
;

2. n=4;
3. d=12mm;
4. S
R
=1200MPa; S
Y
=0.9x1200=1080MPa;
5. N F
M
91600
4
12
1080 75 . 0
2
= =
t
;
6. MPa
P
1157
12 4
157000 4
12
91600 4
2 2
=

=
t t
o ;
7. OK
CAD 3D Model
The 3D model was constructed using solid modeling approach
securing that the shank cross section planar properties were
achieved as previously calculated. The conrod is bushingless,
therefore, only the bearing shells and bolts were modeled

Figure 15. Conrod Design from Conventional Method.
Topology Optimization
The topology optimization results after 14 iterations in Fig. 16
show the trend of removing mass in the center of the shank,
which is exactly the region were the I-Beam profile has its
weight relief. One can notice that the main dimensions were
kept, which is very similar to the I-Beam optimization results,
where the main dimensions B and H were kept in maximum
values. Moreover, the final topology has a big hollow in the
shank transition to the big end while the transition to small end
has a small hollow that was starting to be designed by the
topology optimizer (See appendix for optimizer report).

Figure 16. Elements Densities Before (left) and After (right)
Topology Optimization.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 10 of 18
Linear Buckling FEA
After CAD interpretation, buckling analysis was performed,
and from these results it was decided to remove the hollow of
the concept connecting rod. One can see in Fig. 18 that the
hollow facilitates the buckling, reducing the critical load to
5301kN which was not acceptable according to the
requirements. Therefore, hollow was removed, increasing the
buckling load to 14175kN according to Fig. 19.

Figure 17. Conventional Conrod Linear Buckling Results

Figure 18. Hollowed Conrod Linear Buckling Results

Figure 19. Concept Conrod Linear Buckling Results
Shape Optimization
The shape optimization was performed after the removal of
hollow interpreted from topology optimization with objective
to minimize the maximum fatigue damage calculated by
FEMFAT. The shape optimization result after 50 iterations is
shown in Appendix. This result suggested rounding of some
radii at the shank transition region that helped the final
modeling of Concept Conrod in Fig 20.

Figure 20. Concept Conrod Design from Proposed Method.
Big End FEA
The Big end FEA displacement results in Fig. 21 and 23 are in
accordance with the model described by [11]. One can notice
the bearing clearances being closed after the external forces
application. However, stress peaks were calculated on the
bolts contacts that must be neglected since the connecting rod
material Yield Limit is 550MPa. The stress fringes are shown
only for Rated Power in appendix.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 11 of 18


Figure 21. Displacements on Compression BC from Rated
Power condition (100x magnification).

Figure 22. Conventional (upper) and Concept (lower)
Conrod Big End Contact Pressures on Compression BC
from Rated Power condition.
The contact pressure results in the bearing shells show that the
Concept Conrod distributes the compression load better than
the Conventional Conrod leading to 17% lower peak pressure,
as can be seen in Fig. 22.

Figure 23. Displacements on Tensile BC from Continuous
Overspeed condition.(100x magnification)


Figure 24. Conventional (upper) and Concept (lower) Split
Joint Contact Pressures on Tensile BC from Continuous
Overspeed.
The split joint contact pressures in Fig. 24 show that both
connecting rods kept the joint closed during the Overspeed
loads. One can notice that the Residual Pressure, i.e., the
minimum pressure on the interface is far higher than the
minimum project requirement.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 12 of 18

Small End FEA
The Small End FEA displacements in compression from Rated
Power condition show that the piston pin deflection due to
compression is critical for both connecting rods. One can
realize that the pin deflection in the Concept Conrod is slightly
higher than the Conventional Conrod (Fig. 25) while the
contact pressure is slightly lower (Figs. 26 and 27). This is
explained by the Concept Conrod lower shank stiffness of the
due to its thin I-Beam elements. The von Mises stress fringes
are shown only for Rated Power in appendix.

Figure 25. Conventional (Left) and Concept (Right) Conrod
Displacements on Compression BC from Rated Power
condition (100x magnification).

Figure 26. Conventional Conrod Small End Contact
Pressures on Compression BC from Rated Power condition

Figure 27. Concept Conrod Small End Contact Pressures on
Compression BC from Rated Power condition.
Fatigue Analysis
Considering that FEMFAT calculations already have
reliability factor from statistical influence, the SF calculated
for the big end are very high in both Rated Power and
Continuous Overspeed conditions. The scale minimum must
be neglected due to the bolts contacts, therefore, the big end
SF is 1.4 on the shank for both rods (Figs. 28 and 29).

Figure 28. Conventional Conrod Big End SF - Rated Power.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 13 of 18


Figure 29. Concept Conrod Big End SF - Rated Power.
One can notice from Figs. 28 and 29 that the Concept Conrod
has more homogeneous fatigue factors distribution in the
shank and better fatigue results in the machined regions of the
bore and cap radius than the Conventional Conrod design.

Figure 30. Conventional (Left) and Concept (Right) Conrod
Small End SF - Rated Power.
The Small End Fatigue safety factors are very high for both
connecting rods, once again, the FEMFAT calculation
considered the statistical influence, which already accounts a
reliability factor. One can notice from Figs. 30 to 31 that the
Concept Conrod has slightly lower SF in both Rated Power
and Continuous Overspeed conditions. Additionally, it is
noticed that the Rated Power condition stresses the shank of
the connecting rods, while the Continuous Overspeed stresses
the machined bore and the outer regions of the small end.

Figure 31. Conventional (Left) and Concept (Right) Conrod
Small End SF - Overspeed
Elasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication (EHL)
The EHL analysis was very time consuming, therefore a
sensitivity study was performed to design the Convex Barrel
profile used in the Small End bearing, according Fig.32.
Mainly, it was studied the necessary gap at boundary to avoid
the edge effect observed in Figs. 26 and 27. Nevertheless, the
Small End EHL results in Rated Power condition (Fig 33 and
34) show that both connecting rods have hard contact with
high PACP during the combustion phase, however, the
Concept Conrod has lower PACP than the Conventional
Conrod explained by its thin I-Beam shank.

Figure 32. Small End Bearing Convex Barrel Profile.


Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 14 of 18

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
720 810 900 990 1080 1170 1260 1350 1440
Crank angle (deg)
POFP(MPa)
PACP(MPa)
Total Pressure (MPa)
Max Y
372.541
394.289
394.39
at X
1114
1107
1107
Mean Y (arith.)
130.425
39.5421
144.225

Figure 33. Conventional Conrod Small End Joint EHL
Results in Rated Power condition
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
720 810 900 990 1080 1170 1260 1350 1440
Crank angle []
POFP(MPa)
PACP(MPa)
Total Pressure (MPa)
Max Y
336.128
322.178
337.504
at X
1113
1099
1113
Mean Y (arith.)
126.919
37.1291
138.553

Figure 34. Concept Conrod Small End Joint EHL Results in
Rated Power condition
Hydrodynamic Pressure at 1114.00 deg
-22.603
-12.603
-2.603
7.397
17.397
27.397
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]
0 90 180 270 360
Shell Angle (deg)
0
5e+007
1e+008
1.5e+008
2e+008
2.5e+008
3e+008
3.5e+008
4e+008
Pressure (Pa)

Hydrodynamic Pressure at 1113.00 deg
-20.5
-15.5
-10.5
-5.5
-0.5
4.5
9.5
14.5
19.5
24.5
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]
0 90 180 270 360
Shell Angle (deg)
0
5e+007
1e+008
1.5e+008
2e+008
2.5e+008
3e+008
3.5e+008
4e+008
Pressure (Pa)

Figure 35. Small End POFP in Rated Power for
Conventional Conrod (upper) and Concept Conrod (lower)
The EHL results of the Big End Joint in the Rated Power
condition show that although the MOFT of Concept Conrod is
lower than the Conventional Conrod (Fig. 35), the last one
distributes better compression loads from the combustion due
to its lower stiffness, resulting in considerably lower POFP
according to Figs. 36 and 37.
g
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
M
O
F
T

(
m
i
c
r
o
n
)
720 810 900 990 1080 1170 1260 1350 1440
Crank angle []
Conventional conrod (micron)
Concept conrod (micron)
Min Y
0.987463
0.563914
at X
1101
1099

Figure 36. Big End MOFT in Rated Power for Conventional
Conrod (red) and Concept Conrod (blue)
This is explained by the shank I-Beam shapes differences. In
one hand, the Conventional Conrod has thick I-Beam elements
with, therefore, the Hydrodynamic Pressure concentrates on
the center of the bearing (Fig. 39). In other hand, the Concept
Conrod has thin I-Beam elements, guiding the compression
forces over the entire bearing width, loading the center and
also the edges in way that the hydrodynamic pressures follows
slightly the I-Beam shape as can be noticed in Fig. 39.
However, the edge loading caused PACP peaks in the Concept
Conrod as shown in Fig.38. It is necessary to remark that this
peak is very low (26MPa) and occurs in a small fraction of the
engine cycle, therefore, it is not a critical result.
g
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
720 810 900 990 1080 1170 1260 1350 1440
Crank angle []
POFP(MPa)
PACP(MPa)
Total Pressure (MPa)
Max Y
161.344
0.111887
161.344
at X
1091
1101
1091
Mean Y (arith.)
29.9937
0.00153695
29.9937

Figure 37. Conventional Conrod Big End Joint EHL Results
in Rated Power condition
g
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
M
P
a
]
720 810 900 990 1080 1170 1260 1350 1440
Crank angle []
POFP(MPa)
PACP(MPa)
Total Pressure (MPa)
Max Y
125.829
26.3464
125.829
at X
1091
1099
1091
Mean Y (arith.)
25.8735
0.684054
25.8735

Figure 38. Concept Conrod Big End Joint EHL Results in
Rated Power condition
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 15 of 18

Hydrodynamic Pressure at 1091.00 deg
-24.95
-14.95
-4.95
5.05
15.05
25.05
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]
0 90 180 270 360
Shell Angle (deg)
0
2e+007
4e+007
6e+007
8e+007
1e+008
1.2e+008
1.4e+008
1.6e+008
1.8e+008
Pressure (Pa)

Hydrodynamic Pressure at 1091.00 deg
-24.95
-14.95
-4.95
5.05
15.05
25.05
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]
0 90 180 270 360
Shell Angle (deg)
0
2e+007
4e+007
6e+007
8e+007
1e+008
1.2e+008
1.4e+008
1.6e+008
1.8e+008
Pressure (Pa)

Figure 39. Big End POFP in Rated Power for Conventional
Conrod (upper) and Concept Conrod (lower)
Table 4. Results Summary
Conrod Conventional Concept Diff.
Mass 6.83kg 6.62kg -3%
CG 84.23mm 82.79mm -1.7%
Rod Oscillating Mass 2.20kg 2.05kg -6.7%
Rod Rotating Mass 4.63kg 4.57kg -1.3%
Buckling Load XX 1794.1kN 2744.7kN +53%
Buckling Safety XX 5.2 8.0 +53%
Buckling Load YY 13613kN 14175kN +4.1%
Buckling Safety YY 39.5 41.1 +4.1%
Small End SF 1.47 1.41 -4.1%
Big End SF 1.40 1.40 0%
Small End Stress 130.8MPa 137.1MPa +4.8%
Small End Pressure 269.2MPa 217.5MPa -26.5%
Big End Stress >550MPa >550MPa 0%
Big End Pressure 133.1MPa 110.5MPa -17%
Joint Residual. Press. 36.3MPa 41.9MPa 15.4%
Small End POFP 372.5MPa 336.1MPa -10%
Small End PACP 394.3MPa 322.2MPa -18.3%
Big End POFP 161.3MPa 125.8MPa -22%
Big End MOFT 0.99m 0.56 m -43.4%

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The methodology based on topology optimization guided the
development of a thin I-Beam Conrod Concept that is 3%
lighter and has 6.7% less oscillating mass than the
Conventional Conrod designed by conventional procedures.
Additionally, the Concept Conrod has 22% less POFP and
10% less PACP than Conventional Conrod due to its thinner I-
Beam elements, suggesting that it can have better lubrication
performance;

The optimization techniques are fully applicable to connecting
rods mechanical design; however, each one can be more
useful on different Product Project phases:
- The Topology Optimization Method presents good
opportunities for the design and induces the engineers to
test the limits of the component geometry; however, it
does not deliver the final design automatically, thus it is
recommended for conceptual phases. Furthermore, in the
case of the Conrod, it resulted in a hollowed shank that
was not feasible due to buckling requirements. This was
identified as a limitation of the method.

- The Shape Optimization was applied to minimize the
maximum fatigue damage of the Concept Conrod. After
50 iterations, the results suggested radius rounding in the
shank transitions to the ends that helped the modeling of
the Concept Conrod. Therefore, this method is suggested
to improve Products, mainly, after conceptual phases.

- The Sensitivity Analysis can be applied to time
consuming analysis. In this work it was used for the
selection of the Convex Barrel profile gap at the edges of
the in the small end bearing, that distributes the pressure
avoiding edge contact. Therefore, this technique is
recommended for optimization of Products, mainly, after
design phase.
For future works, it is suggested to integrate the EHL and FEA
models and run multi-objective optimization in a realistic
conrod design. Finally, to solve the identified topology
optimization limitation, it is suggested to develop algorithms
that take into account the buckling modes and its critical loads.
REFERENCES
1. AFZAL, A. Fatigue behavior and life predictions of
forged steel and powder metal connecting rods, Master
Degree Thesis, The University of Toledo, Toledo, 2004,
241p.
2. ANSYS, Release 11.0 Documentation, ANSYS Inc.,
United States, 2007.
3. AVL, Excite Designer v2011 Theory, Austria, 2011.
4. AVL, Excite Power Unit v2011.1 Theory, Austria, 2011.
5. BENDSE M. P., SIGMUND O., Topology Optimization
Theory, Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlim, 1
st

ed., 2004.
6. BOSCH, Automotive Handbook, SAE Society of
Automotive Engineers, 4th ed., Germany, 1996.
7. CHACON H., Structural and fatigue numerical analysis
for connecting rods development. SAE Technical Paper
Series, v. 01, n. 2515, 2006. 11p.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 16 of 18

8. GERE, J.M. Mecnica dos Materiais. Thompson
Learning, So Paulo, 1 ed., 2003.
9. LIMA E SILVA R. A., Diesel engine connecting rod
bolted joint opening analysis with analytic and finite
element models, SAE Technical Paper Series, 2010-36-
0244I, 2010, 21p.
10. LIMA E SILVA R. A. et. all., Automotive Connecting
Rod Development: Oval Beam Design and Testing, SAE
Technical Paper Series, 2012-36-0576, 2012, 14p.
11. LONDHE A., YADAV V., S.A. Finite element analysis
of connecting rod and correlation with test. SAE
Technical Paper Series, v. 01, n. 0816, 2009. 12p.
12. NORTON, R. L. Projeto de mquinas: uma abordagem
integrada. Bookman, Porto Alegre, 2 ed., 2004.
13. ONARILAN, C. A; STICKELS, M. A. Separation of
forged steel connecting rods and caps by fracture
splitting, SAE Technical Paper Series, 93-0033, 1993, 8p.
14. REPGEN, B. Optimized connecting rods to enable higher
engine performance and cost reduction, SAE Technical
Paper Series, 98-0882, 1998, 7p.
15. SHIGLEY, M. Mechanical Engineering Design.
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 5 ed., 1989.
16. SPS METALAC, Comportamento das Juntas
Rigidamente Fixadas por Parafusos, Training Material,
SPS Metalac Indstria e Comrcio Ltda, Brasil, 2008.
17. TOLEDO D. G. C. et. all, Design of a connecting rod of
internal combustion engine by applying the Topology
Optimization Method. 20th INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
Gramado-RS, Brasil, 2009, 7p.
18. TOSCA, TOSCA Structure 7.1.1 Documentation, FE-
DESIGN GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2011
CONTACT INFORMATION
MSc. Rafael Augusto de Lima e Silva
(1,2)

Phone: +55 (11) 4039-9294
E-mail: rafael.silva@thyssenkrupp.com
Alternative: rals84@gmail.com
Prof. Dr. Marco Lcio Bittencourt
(2)

Phone: +55 (19) 3521-3171
E-mail: mlb@fem.unicamp.br
1- Research & Development Engineering
ThyssenKrupp Forging Group
ThyssenKrupp Metalrgica Campo Limpo Ltda
Avenida Alfried Krupp, 1050
13231-900 Campo Limpo Paulista
So Paulo Brasil.
2- Mechanical Design Department
School of Mechanical Engineering
University of Campinas
Caixa Postal: 6122-Baro Geraldo
12093-970 Campinas, So Paulo Brasil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thanks all people involved in this
project: Alex Rodrigues, Robson Cruz, Giovanni Morais,
Almir Atoatte, Pedro Ferreira, Sergio Villalva, Diogo Stuani
and Wiliam Su. Finally, thanks to all institutions that
supported the conduction of this project, specially
ThyssenKrupp Metalrgica Campo Limpo and UNICAMP.


DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
3D Tri Dimensional
BC Boundary Condition
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAE Computer Aided
Engineering
CG Center of Gravity
Conrod Connecting Rod
DOF Degree of Freedom
EHL Elasto-Hydrodynamic
Lubrication
EGR Exhaust Gas
Recirculation
FEA Finite Element Analysis
ICE Internal Combustion
Engine
MOFT Minimum Oil Film
Thickness
PACP Peak Asperity Contact
Pressure
PCP Peak Cylinder Pressure
POFP Peak Oil Film Pressure
SCR Selective Catalytic
Reduction
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 17 of 18


APPENDIX

Figure A. Conventional (left) and Concept (right) Conrods Big End von Mises Stress from Compression BC at Rated Power.
.
Figure B. Conventional (left) and Concept (right) Conrods Big End von Mises Stress from Tensile BC at Rated Power.

Figure C. Conventional (left) and Concept (right) Conrods Small End von Mises Stress at Rated Power.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM
Page 18 of 18


Table A. Topology Optimization Results
iter. MAX_STIFF DRES_COMP OBJ_COMP DRES_TENS OBJ_TENS VOLUME_C
19713.5 9858.932 9858.932 4520.444 9854.568 0.66
0 19713.5 9858.932 9858.932 4520.444 9854.568 0.9999813
1 24152.04 12445.31 12445.31 5370.061 11706.73 0.8521073
2 24229.1 12409.41 12409.41 5421.876 11819.69 0.823284
3 24739.52 12476.6 12476.6 5625.195 12262.92 0.7937187
4 25327.73 12946.94 12946.94 5679.263 12380.79 0.7714811
5 26119.11 13606.12 13606.12 5739.904 12512.99 0.7524201
6 26833.71 14164.8 14164.8 5811.426 12668.91 0.7347038
7 27373.71 14541.4 14541.4 5886.378 12832.31 0.7197742
8 27757.75 14830.64 14830.64 5929.865 12927.11 0.7061311
9 28025.65 15002.06 15002.06 5974.124 13023.59 0.6945658
10 28383.37 15208.78 15208.78 6043.39 13174.59 0.6849176
11 28443.54 15286.8 15286.8 6035.203 13156.74 0.6775242
12 28457.24 15294.09 15294.09 6038.143 13163.15 0.6714029
13 28472.51 15317.78 15317.78 6034.278 13154.73 0.6672053
14 28467.62 15331.19 15331.19 6025.888 13136.44 0.6651278


Figure D. Shape Optimization Results: Fatigue Damage in iteration 1 (left) and after 50 iterations (right)


Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:10:18 PM

You might also like