Durability Comparison and Optimization of

Forged Steel and Ductile Cast Iron

Crankshafts
Jonathan Williams and Farzin Montazersadgh
Graduate Assistants
and
Ali Fatemi, Professor
The University of Toledo
March 7, 2007

www.autosteel.org

Outline
Overview and Overall Goal
Forged Steel & Cast Iron Crankshafts and Comparisons
Experimental Work
Specimen tests
Component tests

Analytical Work
Life predictions
Dynamic load analysis and FEA
Optimization

Conclusions

www.autosteel.org

Overview and Overall Goal

Evaluate and compare fatigue performance of forged
steel components with competing manufacturing
process technologies.
Steering Knuckle
* Forged steel

* Cast aluminum

* Cast iron

Connecting Rod
* Forged steel

* Powder metal

Crankshaft
* Forged steel

* Ductile cast iron

Evaluate life prediction techniques as compared with

experimental results and perform optimization.
www.autosteel.org

Overview and Overall Goal

Steering Knuckle

Forged Steel: 2.5 kg, 11V37 Steel

Cast Aluminum: 2.4 kg, A356-T6
Cast Iron: 4.7 kg, 65-45-12

Connecting Rod

Forged steel: 0.93 lb

Powder metal: 1.2 lb

Crankshaft

Forged steel: 3.9 kg

Ductile cast iron: 3.7 kg

www.autosteel.org

Publications of Results

(Steering Knuckle and Connecting Rod)

Steering Knuckle

Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Forged vs. Competing Process Technologies: A Comparative Study, A.
Fatemi and M. Zoroufi, 24th Forging Industry Technical Conference, Cleveland, OH, October 2002.

Fatigue Life Comparison of Competing Manufacturing Processes: A Study of Steering Knuckle, M. Zoroufi
and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical paper 2004-01-0628, SAE World Congress 2004, Detroit, MI, March 2004.

Durability Comparison and Life Predictions of Competing Manufacturing Processes: An Experimental Study of
Steering Knuckle, M. Zoroufi and A. Fatemi, 25th Forging Industry Technical Conference, Detroit, MI, April
2004.

Experimental Durability Assessment and Life Prediction of Vehicle Suspension Components: A Case Study of
Steering Knuckles, M. Zoroufi and A. Fatemi, Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 220, pp. 1565-1579,
2006.

Connecting Rod

A Comparative Study of Fatigue Behavior and Life Predictions of Forged Steel and PM Connecting Rods, A.
Afzal and A. Fatemi, SAE paper 2004-01-1529, SAE World Congress 2004, Detroit, MI, March 2004.

Connecting Rod Optimization for Weight and Cost Reduction, P. Shenoy and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical
paper 2005-01-0987, SAE World Congress 2005, Detroit, MI, April 2005.

"Dynamic Analysis of Loads and Stresses in Connecting Rods", P. Shenoy and A. Fatemi, Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 220, pp. 615-624, 2006.

"Comparative Durability Study of Competing Manufacturing Process Technologies", 26th Forging Industry
Technical Conference, A. Fatemi, M. Zoroufi, P. Shenoy and A. Afzal, Chicago, IL, November 2005.

www.autosteel.org

Crankshaft Study
Overall Objectives

Evaluate and compare fatigue performance

of forged steel and ductile cast iron
crankshafts.
Perform life predictions and compare with
component test data.
Perform dynamic load analysis and
optimization.
www.autosteel.org

Outline
Literature Survey on Crankshafts

Design and manufacturing considerations including cost analysis

Comparison of Competing manufacturing techniques
Durability assessment and optimization
Experimental techniques and bench testing

Experimental Work
Specimen Testing (Forged steel and ductile cast iron)
Component Testing (Forged steel and ductile cast iron)

Analytical Evaluations

Dynamic Load Analysis

Stress Analysis Using FEA
Durability Analysis and Life Predictions
Optimization

www.autosteel.org

Crankshaft Publication of Results

A Literature Review on Durability Evaluation of Crankshafts Including

Comparisons of Competing Manufacturing Processes and Cost
Analysis, M. Zoroufi and A. Fatemi, 26th Forging Industry Technical
Conference, Chicago, IL, November 2005.

Fatigue Performance Evaluation and Optimization of Crankshafts, J.

Williams, F. Montazersadgh and A. Fatemi 27th Forging Industry
Technical Conference, Ft. Worth, Texas, March 27, 2007.

Fatigue Performance of Forged Steel and Ductile Cast Iron

Crankshafts, J. Williams and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical Paper 200701-1001, SAE World Congress 2007, Innovations in Steel Bar
Products and Processing, April 17, 2007, Detroit, Michigan.

Dynamic Load and Stress Analysis of a Crankshaft, F. Montazersadgh

and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0258, SAE World
Congress 2007, New SI Engine and Component Design, April 17,
2007, Detroit, Michigan.

www.autosteel.org

Crankshaft Nomenclature

Loading: Bending and Torsion

http://www.tpub.com/engine3/en3-53.htm

www.autosteel.org

Crankshafts
Forged Steel Crankshaft
Outdoor power equipment engine
460 cc, 12.5 HP
3.9 kg

Ductile Cast Iron Crankshaft

Similar engine type and size
3.7 kg

www.autosteel.org

Specimen Testing
Specimen Tests
Strain-controlled tensile tests
Strain-controlled fatigue tests
Procedures and practices as
outlined by ASTM
Round specimens machined
from unmachined crankshafts

Closed-loop servo-hydraulic
axial load frame

www.autosteel.org

Specimen Geometry

www.autosteel.org

Material Stress-Strain Curves

Forged Steel Monotonic

True Stress (MPa)

900
800

Forged Steel Cyclic

700

Cast Iron Cyclic

600
Cast Iron Monotonic

500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

True Strain (%)

www.autosteel.org

8.0

9.0

10.0

Material Stress-Life Comparison

1000
True Stress Amplitude (MPa)

Forged Steel

Cast Iron

(2)

100
1E+1

1E+2

1E+3

1E+4

1E+5

1E+6

1E+7

1E+8

Reversals to Failure, 2Nf

Forged steel has better S-N fatigue performance than the ductile cast iron.

At long lives, for a given stress, forged steel has a factor of 30 longer life.

www.autosteel.org

Neuber Stress Range [()()E]1/2, MPa

Material Comparison
10000
Forged Steel

Cast Iron
1000

(2)

(2)

100
1E+1

1E+2

1E+3

1E+4

1E+5

1E+6

1E+7

1E+8

Reversals to Failure, 2Nf

Fatigue life is often controlled by stress and strain ranges at root of the fillet.

At long lives, the forged steel has a factor of 50 longer life.

www.autosteel.org

Charpy V-Notch Results

Specimen Orientation

100

Forged steel L-T

90

Results

Absorbed Energy (J)

80
70
60

Forged steel T-L

50
40
30

Cast Iron

20
10
0
-100

-50

50

100

Test Temperature (C)

www.autosteel.org

150

200

250

Mechanical Properties
Forged Steel

Cast Iron

Ratio*

YS (MPa)

625

412

0.66

UTS (MPa)

827

658

0.80

%RA

58

0.10

CVN (Room Temp) (J)

58

0.08

Sf (at Nf=106) (MPa)

359

263

0.73

* base of comparison is the forged steel

www.autosteel.org

Component Fatigue Tests

Schematic of test set-up

Actual test set-up

Load-controlled, constant amplitude fatigue tests

R-Ratio: -0.2
Test frequency: 1.4 3 Hz
Life range: 7 X 103 4 X 106
Both crankshafts tested at the same load (moment) amplitudes
www.autosteel.org

Component Fatigue Test Results

1000
-0.1331

Moment Amplitude (N-m)

y = 2555.8x
R2 = 0.8128

y = 2144.6x-0.1389
2
R = 0.9536

Forged Steel
Cast Iron
100
1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Cycles to Failure (Nf)

Lives based on crack initiation (small crack on the order of a few mm).

For a given bending moment, forged steel crankshaft has a factor of 6 longer life.

www.autosteel.org

Component Fatigue Test Results

Based on 5% Change
1000

Moment Amplitude (N-m)

y = 2401.8x-0.1218
2
R = 0.8656

-0.1651

Forged Steel

y = 3110.8x
R2 = 0.9579

Cast Iron

100
1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Cycles to Failure (Nf)

Lives based on 5% change in displacement amplitude (large crack).

For a given bending moment, the forged steel crankshaft has an order of magnitude
longer life.

www.autosteel.org

Fractured Components

www.autosteel.org

S-N Life Prediction Results

1.E+07

Sa Sm
+
=1
S Nf Su

Predicted Cycles to Failure

S Nf = (2 N f )
'
f

Forged Steel
1.E+06

Cast Iron

1.E+05

1.E+04

1.E+03
1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

Experimental Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org

1.E+07

Dynamic Load Analysis

Pressure vs. Crankshaft Angle
40

Pressure (bar)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Crankshaft Angle (Deg)

Slider-Crank Mechanism
(ADAMS Simulation)

20000

Max Bending

Range of Bending

Range of Torsion

25

15000

Critical Speed
20

Resultant
5000

0
0

90

180

270

360

450

-5000

Bending

Torsional

-10000
Crankshaft Angle (Deg)

540

630

720

Force Magnitude (kN)

10000
Force (N)

Max Torsion

15

10

0
2000

2800
Engine Speed (RPM)

www.autosteel.org

3600

Digitized Models

Forged Steel

Cast Iron

www.autosteel.org

Boundary Conditions for FEA

Service Life
(1 of 4 steps)

Applied load;
constant
pressure
over 120

Fixed
edge in
directions
1&2
over 180

www.autosteel.org

Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom
over 180

Mesh Generation
2.54
3.81

0.762

3.81

1.27

3.81

3.81
3.81

Cast Iron

0.762
3.81
2.54
3.81

Forged Steel
0.762
3.81
3.81

3.81

www.autosteel.org

FEA and Critical Location

www.autosteel.org

FEA and Critical Location

Range

Mean

250

200

Critical Location
200
150

Stress Magnitude (MPa)

Stress Magnitude (MPa)

Critical Location

100

50

150

100

50

0
0

180

360

540

720

-50

-50

Crankshaft Angle (Deg)

Location Number

www.autosteel.org

Comparison Between FEA and

Experimental
Applied load;
concentrated
force

Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom

Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom

www.autosteel.org

Optimization Flowchart

www.autosteel.org

Geometry Optimization Process

Final Optimized
Geometry
www.autosteel.org

Material and Manufacturing

Optimization
Fillet Rolling
(900 kgf)

Manufacturing
Adding fillet
rolling

Material
Using MicroAlloyed Steel

Standard
Bare Sample

Specimen Rig Test (Park et al. 2001)

www.autosteel.org

Conclusions
Yield strength of the forged steel is 50% higher than that of the
cast iron, while the ultimate strength is 26% higher. Ductility and
impact toughness of the forged steel is also significantly higher.
Material fatigue strength at 106 cycles for the forged steel is 37%
higher than that of the cast iron, resulting in 30 times longer life.
Component fatigue tests show fatigue strength based on crack
initiation for the forged steel crankshaft to be 27% higher than
that of the cast iron. This results in a factor of 6 longer life.
Fatigue crack growth was a significant portion of the life for both
crankshafts. The crack growth rate for the forged steel was
slower than that of the cast iron.
www.autosteel.org

Conclusions
Life predictions using the S-N approach provided very reasonable
estimations for the forged steel crankshafts. Predictions for the
cast iron crankshafts were less accurate but were conservative.
Dynamic load analysis results in more realistic stresses, whereas
static analysis overestimates the results.
Considering the torsional load in the overall dynamics analysis has
no effect on von Mises stress at the critically stressed location.
Geometry optimization resulted in 18% weight reduction of the
forged steel crankshaft. Fillet rolling results in significant increase
of the crankshaft fatigue strength.
www.autosteel.org