CONTENTS

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION PAGE NO.

1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………05

CHAPTER-2 SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROBLEM

A. Problem Definition …………………………………….06

B. Objectives of the Work …………………….………….06

CHAPTER-3 LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………06

CHAPTER-4 THEORETICAL CALUCLATIONS OF

CRANKSHAFT …………………………………….….08

CHAPTER-5 DESIGN OF CRANKSHAFT WHEN THE CRANK

IS AT AN ANGLE OF MAXIMUM BENDING

MOMENT ………………………………………………09

CHAPTER-6 DESIGN OF CRANKPIN ……………………………...09

CHAPTER-7 DESIGN OF LEFT-HAND CRANK WEB ……………10

CHAPTER-8 DESIGN OF RIGHT-HAND CRANK WEB ………….11

CHAPTER-9 DESIGN OF CRANK PIN AGAINST FATIGUE LOADING

………………………………………………………………………….…12

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………….25

CHAPTER-2 SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROBLEM ……………. 26
CHAPTER-3 DESIGN OF CONNECTING ROD …………………… 26
CHAPTER-4 MODELLING OF CONNECTING ROD ………………27
CHAPTER-5 ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTING ROD …………... 32
CHAPTER-6 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FORGED STEEL …39
CHAPTER-7 CALUCLATIONS
7.1 calculations of factor of safety of connecting rod ……..39
1
 7.2 calculation for weight and stiffness for forged steel … 39
7.3 fatigue calculation ………………………………………40
CONCLUSION ………...………………………………………………….41

2
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
No No
1. Theoretical calculations on crankshaft 8
2. Mechanical properties 13
3. Result 24
4. Parameters 30
5. Stresses and deformation of forged steel 38
6. Mechanical properties for forged steel 38

3
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
no. no.
1 Solid modelling of crankshaft 13
2 Mesh model of crankshaft 14
3 Von misses stress of structural steel crankshaft 15
4 Von misses stress of Al 5083 alloy composite crankshaft 16
5 Equivalent elastic strain of structural steel crankshaft 16
6 Equivalent elastic strain of Al 5083 alloy composite 17
crankshaft
7 Total deformation of structure steel crankshaft 18
8 Total deformation of Al 5083 alloy composite crankshaft 21
9 Life for steel 21
10 Life for Al sic 22
11 Safety factor for steel 23
12 Safety factor for Al sic 24
1 Modelling of connecting rod 31
2 Analysis of connecting rod 31
3 Loads at boundary conditions 32
4 Equivalent stress 32
5 Normal stress (along axis) 33
8 Shear stress (along axis) 34
12 Directional deformation (x-axis) 35
13 Directional deformation (y-axis) 36
14 Directional deformation (z-axis) 37

4
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF CRANKSHAFT USING ALUMINIUM
ALLOY

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
The basic function of the crankshaft is to convert reciprocating motion of a piston into rotary
motion.Crankshaft continuously undergoes cyclic loading during working conditions. This
gives rise to fatigue. Thus factors’ affecting its service life and durability needs to be
considered at the designing phase itself. Design & development of a crankshaft which can
sustain cyclic loading without undergoing failure is an important issue in the manufacturing
industry, target is always to manufacture a crankshaft having less weight and high fatigue
strength. Lighter crankshaft gives higher efficiency & higher power output.
This Project highlights a study related to single cylinder four stroke engines. Crankshafts
made up of forged steel & Aluminum Alloy (Al 5083) are modelled & analyzed to optimize
the weight. Finite element analysis is carried out in stages for each crankshaft. Stresses
obtained from the analysis are used for super positioning of dynamic loading conditions of
crankshaft. Static & Fatigue analysis carried out for finding the possibilities of optimization
of weight & hence reduction in cost.

5
CHAPTER-2 SPECIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM
A. Problem Definition
Fatigue failure is a common problem experienced in cyclic loading of crankshaft.
Fillet areas of crankshaft undergo stress concentration which may lead to initiation of
crack and finally failure of the crankshaft To manufacture a crankshaft of suitable
material which can have adequate fatigue strength, service life and durability is a
challenge to all engineers. Crankshaft having less weight increases efficiency and
power output and also cost reduction is possible with the changes in the materials.
B. Objectives of the Work
To perform static and fatigue analysis of a crankshaft made of Aluminum Al(Al5083)
Reinforced with Silicon carbide (SiC) which was fabricated by ultrasonic
assisted stir casting process to compare the stress distribution, deformation and fatigue
life and safety factor with structural steel. This work checks possibility of whether a
forged steel crankshaft can be replaced with a developed Al alloy crankshaft.
Following objectives are proposed to follow during Project work
a. Preparing model of crankshaft of single cylinder engine single cylinder engine
using CATIA
b. Analysis of model of crankshaft using ANSYS software. c. Identification of

CHAPTER-3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Yenetti Srinivasa Rao et al. [1] conducted study to investigate weight and cost
reduction opportunities for a Transport Refrigeration Compressor Crankshaft. They
carried out dynamic load analysis, static & cyclic stress analysis, fatigues analysis,
torsional analysis & topology. They concluded that weight reduction up to 12% and
cost reduction up to 23% is achieved without changing life and vibration
characteristics.

Jonathan Williams and Ali Fatemi [2] carried out study to compare characteristics of
cast iron and forged steel crankshaft.

They concluded with the findings

1. Forged steel has higher ductility than cast iron
2. Fatigue strength for forged steel is much higher than cast iron hence its life is also
longer as compared to cast iron crankshaft.
3. Forged steel has six times longer life than cast iron crankshaft.

6
C.M.Balamurugan et al.[3] Carried out study to compare and evaluate fatigue
performance of cast iron and forged steel crankshaft. Dynamic simulation and finite
element analysis was performed to obtain values of stress at critical areas. They
concluded that forged steel crankshaft can be replaced with cast iron crankshaft for
batter performance and life. Amit Patil,et al.[4]in their paper focused on the failure
of crankshaft due to fatigue which are put into service in several applications. The
motivation behind their paper was to study how fatigue phenomenon leads to the
failure of the crankshaft.

They summarized that Fatigue failure is the cause associated with material and hence
while investigating all these different cases of crankshaft failure different
metallographic tests were conducted of the failure regions through which various
mechanical properties of material are evaluated and which helped to find the failure
mode of the crankshaft.

K. Thriveni, et al.[5] in their study preformed static and fatigue analysis of crankshaft
using ANSYS. They compared theoretical calculations with the ANSYS result and
found that maximum deformation appears at the centre of the crankpin neck surface.
Maximum stress is concentrated at the fillet. Von mises stress was less thus design
was safe. C. Azoury et al. [6] carried out experimental & analytical modal analysis
of crankshaft. Dynamic behavior was found using impact testing.

They concluded that experimental values and FEA values are almost same.

Ram.R.Wayzode,et al. [7] prepared model of crankshaft using software and analysed
it through ANSYS. Static & fatigue analysis was carried out for obtaining results.

They concluded that forged steel is more suitable material for crankshaft as compared
with cast iron has higher ductility than cast iron. oppurtunities of weight optimization.

7
CHAPTER-4 THEORETICAL CALCULATION OF CRANKSHAFT
 Material type: Forged steel
Carbon: 0.35-0.45
Manganese: 0.60-0.90
Young’s Modulus: 2.21 x105 N/mm2
Poisson’s Ratio: 0.30
Density: 7833 kg / m3
Yield strength:680 N/mm2
Ultimate Tensile Strength: 850 N/mm2

 Material type I: Al- SiC (10% SiC)

Young’s Modulus: 2 x 105MPa
Poisson’s Ratio: 0.3
Density: 2900 kg / m3
Yield Strength: 430 N/mm2
After doing the calculation the load on various points of crankshaft is obtained. The stresses
obtained from static analysis would be utilized for the further fatigue analysis using S-N
curve to obtain Fatigue life and fatigue Safety factor.
Table:1 Theoretical Calculation of Crankshaft
CRANK PIN RADIUS 22.6

SHAFT DIAMETER 34.925

THICKNESS OF THE CRANK WEB 21.336

BORE DIAMETER 53.73

LENGTH OF THE CRANK PIN 43.6

MAXIMUM PRESSURE 35 bar

8
CHAPTER-5 Design of crankshaft when the crank is at an angle of
maximum bending Moment

At this position of crankshaft bending moment on the shaft is maximum and the twisting
moment is zero.

Let D = piston diameter or cylinder bore in mm. p = Maximum intensity of pressure on the
piston in N/mm2

The thrust in the connecting rod will be equal to the gas load on the piston ( Fp). We know
that gas load on the piston,

Fp={(π/4) x D2 x p } = 7.93KN

Distance between two bearings is given by,

B = 2D = 2 x 53.73 =107.46 mm B1 = b2 = b = 53.73 mm Due to this piston gas load (FP)

acting horizontally, there will be two horizontal reactions H1 and H2 at bearings 1 and 2
respectively, such that

H1 = H2 =Fp/2=3.965 KN

CHAPTER-6 Design of Crankpin.

Let dc = Diameter of crankpin in mm, lc = Length of the crankpin in mm, σb = Allowable
bending stress for the crankpin in N/mm2.

Bending moment at the centre of the crankpin,

Mc = H1. B2 ……………1

9
We also know that

Mc = {(π/32) x (dc 3) x σb} ……..2

from equations 1 & 2

Diameter of crankpin dc = 45.2 mm.σb = 23.4 N/mm2.

The length of the crankpin is given by lc = {Fp/( dc x Pb)} = 43.6 mm

Where Pb= 4.026 N/mm2 = permissible bearing pressure in N/mm2.

CHAPTER-7 Design of left hand Crank web

The crank web is designed for eccentric loading. There will be two stresses acting on the
crank web, one is direct compressive stress and the other is bending stress due to piston gas
load (Fp).

Let,
w = Width of crank web
t = thickness of the crank web

The width of crank web (w) is taken as

w = 1.125dc + 12.7 mm = 63.55 mm

The thickness (t) of the crank web is given empirically as,

t= 0.39 x D = 21.336

We know that maximum bending moment on the crank web,

10
M = H1 {b2-( lc/2)-( t/2)} =168.86 x 103Nmm

And Section Modulus is,

Z = [(w x t2)/6] =4821.59 mm3

Bending stress bending stress induced in the crank web is,

σb = M/Z=35.02 N/mm3

Here, induced bending stress is less than the allowable bending stress which is
(143N/mm2). Hence the design is safe. Considering factor of safety 3.

CHAPTER-8 Design of right hand crank web:

The dimensions of the right hand crank web (i.e. thickness and width) are made equal to left
hand crank web from the balancing point of view.
Design of shaft
Let
ds = Diameter of shaft in mm.

We know that bending moment on shaft is,

BM = Fp x c =238.05 x 103Nmm

Where, c =clearance = 30 mm (assuming)

And twisting moment on shaft is,

TM = Fp x r
Where, r = Offset of Crankpin = stroke /2 =33.58
assuming stroke length to be 25 % more than bore diameter.

11
TM =266.45 x 103Nmm

Equivalent moment on shaft is given by,

Ms = (BM2 + TM2 )½=357300.16 Nmm

Now, we know that

Ms = {(π/32) x (ds3) x σb}

Hence, shaft diameter ds = given 34.925 mm, σb = 85.43 N/mm2

CHAPTER-9 Design of crank pin against fatigue loading

According to distortion energy theory, the Von-Misses stress induced in the crank-pin is,

Mev=( (Kb+Mc)2)+ ¾(Kt xTc)2)1/2

Where
Kb = combined fatigue and shock factor for bending = 2 (Assume)
Kt = combined fatigue and shock factor for torsion. = 1.5 (Assume)

Putting the values in above equation we get

Mev = ( (Kb+Mc)2)+ ¾(Kt x Tc)2 )1/2= 159.592 x 103Nmm.

Also we know that,

Mev = {(π/32) x (ds3) x σv}

12
Von mises stress

σv= 38.15 N/mm² Now Twisting moment

Tev = ( (Kb+Mc)2)+ (Kt x Tc)2 )1/2= 357 x 103 N mm.

Shear stress:
τe = (π/16) x dc3 x τ; τ = 19.69N/mm2

A.FEA of Steel a composite material.

A 3D model of a crankshaft is used for analysis in ANSYS14 workbench. The loading
conditions are assumed to be static. Analysis is done with pressure loads applied at the piston
end and at the fixed crank end.

Table:2 Material Properties

Property Steel C45 Al-SiCp(10% SiCp)
Young’s modulus, MPa 2×105 2×105
Poisson ratio 0.29 0.3
Yield Strength, MPa 360 430
Density, kg/m3 7850 2900
C. Solid Modelling of Steel and composite material CREO 5.0 is used for
Modelling of crankshaft
Fig 1- Solid Modelling of Crankshaft

13
FEM Analysis
The element selected is 10 tetrahedral. Finite element analysis is carried out on carbon steel
crankshaft as well as on aluminum alloy reinforced with SiC particles. The material
properties for Al alloy composite were taken from the reference papers. From the analysis the
equivalent stress (Vonmises stress), equivalent strain and total deformation are
determined.No.of nodes and elements generated are 88912 and 41058 Respectively

Fig 2-meshed model of crankshaft

Fig 3. Vonmises stress of structural steel crankshaft

14
Fig. .4Von Mise’s Stress of Al 5083 alloy Composite Crankshaft

Fig. 3 and Fig.4 shows Min Equivalent stress as .00017052 MPa and maximum 143.84MPa
and minimum equivalent stress as .00001799Pa and maximum 144.02MPa for a crankshaft
made of Structural steel and Al alloy composite respectively

15
Fig. 5 Equivalent elastic strain of Structural steel crankshaft

Fig. 6 Equivalent elastic strain of Al 5083 alloy Composite Crankshaft

Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 shows Min Equivalent elastic strain as 1.137 8X 10-9 mm/mm and1.156 X
10-9 mm/mm and max Equivalent elastic strain as .00079mm/mm and 0.00076 mm/mm for a
crankshaft made of Structural steel and Al alloy composite respectively.

16
Fig.7 Total Deformation of Structure steel Crankshaft

Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows Min Total deformation as 0 for both and max Total deformation as
0.032185 mm and 0.032199 mm for a crankshaft made of Structural steel and Al alloy
composite respectively

17
Fig.8 Total Deformation of Al 5083 Composite Crankshaft

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION

The Stress Life (SxN) theory was employed to evaluate the crankshaft fatigue life.
Calculation for Factor of Safety, Weight, Stiffness, Life for forged steel Crankshaft

As yield stress is considered as a criteria of design , calculations are done based on

Soderbeg’s equation.

f.s = factor of safety

σm = mean stress
σy = yield stress
σv = variable stress
σe = endurance stress
1/f.s= σm/σy +σv/σe

18
 i) Safety Factor For Steel C 45
ii) σmax = 143.84 σmin = 0.00017052
iii) σm = σmax + σmin/2 =71.92
iv) σy = 360 Mpa σv = σmax−σmin/2 = 71.73
v) σe = 0.6×360=216
vi) 1/𝑓.𝑠 = 0.531= 1.88
vii) Factor of safety [F.S] = 1.88
ii) Calculation for Weight and Stiffness For carbon Steel (c45):

Density of steel = 7.850 x 10-6 kg/mm3

Volume = Area x length=378.6x 97.6=37829.8mm3
Deformation = 0.032985 mm
Weight of forged steel = volume ×density
= 37829.8x 7.85 x10-6
= 0.29 kg = 0.29×9.81 = 2.91 N
Stiffness = weight/deformation = 0.29/0.032985=8.79 kg/mm=87.9 N/mm
iii) Fatigue Calculation of life For Carbon Steel
Result for fatigue of connecting rod:
N=1000(sf/0.9σu)3/log (𝜎𝑒′/0.9×𝜎𝑢)
Where,
N = No. of cycles
σe = Endurance Limit
𝜎u = Ultimate Tensile Stress
𝜎e′ = Endurance limit for variable axial stress
Ka = Load correction factor for reversed axial load = 0.8
Ksr = Surface finish factor = 1.2
Ksz = Size factor = 1
𝜎e′ = σe×ka×ksr×ksz
𝑠𝑓 = 𝑓.𝑠.σv/(1−𝑓.𝑠.𝜎m)
𝜎u=750 Mpa
𝜎e′= σe×ka×ksr×ksz = 216×0.8×1.2×1 = 207.36Mpa
sf = f.s.σv /(1−𝑓.𝑠.𝜎m/𝜎u) = 1.88x 71.73/(1-1.88x 71.92/750) = 164.5 MPa
N=1000(sf/0.9σu)3/log (𝜎e′/0.9×𝜎u)

19
= 1000(164.5/ 0.9×750)3/log (207.36/ 0.9×750) = 1.3 x 106cycles

Calculation for Factor of Safety, Weight, Stiffness, Life for of AL SIC

(10% SIC)

i) Safety factor for AlSiC

σmax = 144.02 σmin = 0.0001799

σm = σmax+ σmin/2 =72.01
σy = 430Mpa
σy = σmax−σmin/2 = 71.99
σe = 0.6×430=258 Mpa
1/𝑓.𝑠 =.446
Factor of safety [F.S] = 2.25
ii)Calculation for Weight and Stiffness For Al SiC

Density of AlSiC = 2.9 x 10-6 kg/mm3

Volume = Area x length=378.6x 97.6=37829.8mm3
Deformation = 0.032199 mm
Weight of forged steel = volume ×density = 37829.8x 2.9x10-6 = 0.109kg = 0.29×9.81 = 1
N Stiffness = weight/deformation = 0.109/0.032199 =3.385 kg/mm=33.85 N/mm
iii) Fatigue calculation for Life forAlSiC
Result for fatigue of connecting rod:
N=1000(sf/0.9σu)3/log (𝜎e′/0.9×𝜎u)
𝜎u=σe x2 =516 MPa
𝜎e′= σe×ka×ksr×ksz = 258×0.8×1.2×1 = 247.68Mpa
sf = f.s.σv /(1−𝑓.𝑠.𝜎𝑚/𝜎𝑢) = 2.25x 71.99/(1-2.25x 72.01/516) = 236.11MPa
N=1000(sf/0.9σu)3/log (𝜎e′/0.9×𝜎u)

= 1000(236.11/ 0.9×516)3/log (247.68/ 0.9x516)= 1.83x 106cycles

20
Fig.9 Life for steel

21
Fig.10 Life for Al sic

After calculating the alternate and mean stresses, we can plot the Soderberg diagram. With
the alternate and mean stresses, and using the Modified Goodman diagram for the crankshaft
material, it is possible to evaluate the fatigue factors

22
Fig.11 Safety Factor for Steel

23
Fig12.safety factor for Al Sic

Table:3 RESULT
Parameter C45 Al SiC
Von Mises stress(Mpa) 143.84 144.02
Ansys
Total deformation 0.032985 0.032199
(mm)(ansys)
Equivalent strain 0.00079 0.00076
Safety factor(ansys) 1.0094 to 15 0.9 to 15
Life (cycles)(ansys) 1×𝟏𝟎𝟔 1×𝟏𝟎𝟖
Bending 103 36.88
stress(analytical)
Safety 1.88 2.15
factor(analytical)
Life (analytical) 1×𝟏𝟎𝟔 1.8×𝟏𝟎𝟔

24
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF CONNECTING ROD USING FORGED
STEEL

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
In a reciprocating piston engine, the connecting rod connects the piston to the crank or
crankshaft. In modern automotive internal combustion engines, the connecting rods are most
usually made of steel for production engines, but can be made of aluminum (for lightness and
the ability to absorb high impact at the expense of durability) or titanium (for a combination
of strength and lightness at the expense of affordability)
for high performance engines, or of cast iron for applications such as motor scooters. The
small end attaches to the piston pin, gudgeon pin (the usual British term) or wrist pin, which
is currently most often press fit into the con rod but can swivel in the piston, a "floating wrist
pin" design. The connecting rod is under tremendous stress from the reciprocating load
represented by the piston, actually stretching and being compressed with every rotation, and
the load increases to the third power with increasing engine speed. Failure of a connecting
rod, usually called "throwing a rod" is one of the most common causes of catastrophic engine
failure in cars, frequently putting the broken rod through the side of the crankcase and
thereby rendering the engine irreparable; it can result from fatigue near a physical defect in
the rod, lubrication failure in a bearing due to faulty maintenance or from failure of the rod
bolts from a defect, improper tightening, or re-use of already used (stressed) bolts where not
recommended. Despite their frequent occurrence on televised competitive automobile events,
such failures are quite rare on production cars during normal daily driving. This is because
production auto parts have a much larger factor of safety, and often more systematic quality
control. When building a high performance engine, great attention is paid to the connecting
rods, eliminating stress risers by such techniques as grinding the edges of the rod to a smooth
radius, shot peening to induce compressive surface stresses (to prevent crack initiation),
balancing all connecting rod/piston assemblies to the same weight and Magna fluxings to
reveal otherwise invisible small cracks which would cause the rod to fail under stress. In
addition, great care is taken to torque the con rod bolts to the exact value specified; often
these bolts must be replaced rather than reused. The big end of the rod is fabricated as a unit
and cut or cracked in two to establish precision fit around the big end bearing shell. Recent
engines such as the Ford 4.6 liter engine and the Chrysler 2.0 liter engine have connecting
rods made using powder metallurgy, which allows more precise control of size and weight
with less machining and less excess mass to be machined off for balancing. The cap is then
separated from the rod by a fracturing process, which results in an uneven mating surface due
to the grain of the powdered metal. This ensures that upon reassembly, the cap will be
perfectly positioned with respect to the rod, compared to the minor misalignments which can
occur if the mating surfaces are both flat. A major source of engine wear is the sideways
force exerted on the piston through the con rod by the crankshaft, which typically wears the
cylinder into an oval cross-section rather than circular, making it impossible for piston rings
to correctly seal against the cylinder walls. Geometrically, it can be seen that longer
connection rods will reduce the amount of this sideways force, and therefore lead to longer
engine life. However, for a given engine block, the sum of the length of the con rod plus the
piston stroke is a fixed number, determined by the fixed distance between the crankshaft axis

25
and the top of the cylinder block where the cylinder head fastens; thus, for a given cylinder
block longer stroke, giving greater engine displacement and power, requires a shorter
connecting rod (or a piston with smaller compression height), resulting in accelerated
cylinder wear.
CHAPTER2- SPECIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM
The objective of the present work is to design and analyses of connecting rod made of Forged
steel. Steel materials are used to design the connecting rod. In this project the material
(carbon steel) of connecting rod replaced with Forged steel . Connecting rod was created in
CREO 5.0. Model is imported in ANSYS for analysis. After analysis a comparison is made
between existing steel connecting rod viz., Forged steel in terms of weight, factor of safety,
stiffens, deformation and stress.

CHAPTER3- DESIGN OF CONNECTING ROD

A connecting rod is a machine member which is subjected to alternating direct compressive
and tensile forces. Since the compressive forces are much higher than the tensile force,
therefore the cross section of the connecting rod is designed as a strut and the rankine formula
is used. A connecting rod subjected to an axial load W may buckle with x-axis as neutral axis
in the plane of motion of the connecting rod,{or} y-axis is a neutral axis. The connecting rod
is considered like both ends hinged for buckling about x-axis and both ends fixed for
buckling about y-axis. A connecting rod should be equally strong in buckling about either
axis.
According to rankine formulae
[𝜎𝑐×𝐴] [𝜎𝑐×𝐴]
Wcr about x-axis = =1+𝑎[𝑙 𝐾𝑥𝑥]2
1+𝑎[𝐿/𝐾𝑥𝑥]2

[ ∴𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑑𝐿=𝑙]

[𝜎𝑐×𝐴] [𝜎𝑐×𝐴]
Wcr about y-axis = 1+𝑎[𝐿/ 𝐾𝑦𝑦]2 = 1+𝑎[𝑙 /2𝐾𝑦𝑦]2

[ ∴𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑠𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑𝐿=𝑙/2]
In order to have a connecting rod equally strong in buckling about both the axis, the buckling
loads must be equal. i.e.
[𝜎𝑐×𝐴] [𝜎𝑐×𝐴]
= 1+𝑎 [𝑙/ 𝐾𝑥𝑥]2= 1+𝑎[𝑙 /2𝐾𝑦𝑦]2 [or]

[𝑙/ 𝐾𝑥𝑥]2 = [𝑙 /2𝐾𝑦𝑦]2

Kxx = 4𝐾𝑦𝑦 2 [or] I xx = 4Iyy [∴𝐼=𝐴×𝐾2]
This shows that the connecting rod is four times strong in buckling about y-axis than about-
axis. If I xx > 4Iyy, Then buckling will occur about y-axis and if I xx < 4Iyy, then buckling
will occur about x-axis .In Actual practice I xx is kept slightly less than 4Iyy. It is usually
taken between 3 and 3.5 and the Connecting rod is designed for buckling about x-axis. The

26
design will always be satisfactory for buckling about y-axis. The most suitable section for the
connecting rod is I-section with the proportions shown mfg.
Area of the cross section = 2[4t x t] + 3t x t=11𝑡 2
Moment of inertia about x-axis = 2[4txt]+3txt=11𝒕2
Moment of inertia about x-axis
I xx = 1 12 [4𝑡{5𝑡}3 −3𝑡{3𝑡}3 ] = 419 12[𝑡 4 ]
And moment of inertia about y-axis
I yy = 2×1 12×t×{4t}3+1 12{3t}t3 =131 12[t4]
I xx/I yy = [419/12]×[12/131]=3.2
Since the value of I xx/I yy lies between 3 and 3.5 m therefore I-section chosen is quite
satisfactory. 3.1 Pressure Calculation for 150cc Engine Suzuki 150 cc Specifications Engine
type air cooled 4-stroke
Bore x Stroke (mm) = 57×58.6
Displacement = 149.5 CC
Maximum Power = 13.8 bhp @ 8500 rpm
Maximum Torque = 13.4 Nm @ 6000 rpm
Compression Ratio = 9.35/1
Density of Petrol C8H18 = 737.22 kg/m3
= 737.22E-9 kg/mm3
Temperature = 60 o F
= 288.855 ̊ K
Mass = Density × Volume = 737.22𝐸 −9 x149.5𝐸 3 = 0.11kg
Molecular Weight of Petrol 114.228 g/mole
From Gas Equation,
PV = Mrt R = Rx /Mw = 8.3143/114228 = 72.76
P = (0.11×72.786×288.85)/ 149.5E 3
P = 15.5 Mpa.
3.2 Design Calculations for Existing Connecting Rod
Thickness of flange & web of the section = t
Width of section B= 4t

27
The standard dimension of I - SECTION.

Standard Dimension of I – Section

Height of section H = 5t
Area of section A= 2(4t×t) +3t×t
A = 11t²
419
M.O.I of section about x axis: I xx = 1 12 [4𝑡{5𝑡}3 −3𝑡{3𝑡}3 ] = [𝑡 4 ]
12

MI of section about y axis:

Iyy = 2×1 12×t×{4t}3+1 12{3t}t3
= 131 12[t4]
Ixx*Iyy = 3.2
Length of connecting rod (L) = 2 times the stroke
L = 117.2 mm
Buckling load WB = maximum gas force × F.O.S
WB = (𝜎𝑐×𝐴) (1+a (L/Kxx))2
= 37663N
𝜎𝑐= compressive yield stress = 415MPa
K xx = I xx A
K xx = 1.78t
a = 𝜎c/ 𝜋2𝐸
a = 0.0002
By substituting 𝜎𝑐, A, a, L, Kxx on WB then
4565t4-37663𝑡 2 -81639.46 = 0
t2 = 10.03
t = 3.167mm
t = 3.2mm
Width of section B = 4t
4×3.2= 12.8mm
Height of section H = 5t
= 5×3.2

28
= 16mm
Area A = 11𝑡 2
=11×3.2×3.2
= 112.64mm2
Height at the big end (crank end) = H2
= 1.1H to 1.25H
= 1.1×16
H2 =17.6mm
Height at the small end (piston end) = 0.9H to 0.75H
= 0.9×16
H1 =12mm
Fig 3.2 2D Drawing for Connecting Rod
Stroke length (l) =117.2mm
Diameter of piston (D) =57mm
P=15.5N/mm2
Radius of crank(r) =stroke length/2
=58.6/2
=29.3
Maximum force on the piston due to pressure
𝜋
F1 = π4×𝐷2 ×𝑝 =π/4 x (57)2x15.469

=39473.16N
Maximum angular speed Wmax= [2πNmax] / 60
[2𝜋×8500]
= 𝐴=𝜋𝑟 2
60

=768rad/sec
N= l /r =112/ (29.3) = 3.8
Maximum Inertia force of reciprocating parts
Fim = Mr(Wmax)2 r (cosθ + COS2θ /n ) (Or)
Fim = Mr (Wmax) 2 r (1+1/n) = 0.11x (768)2 x (0.0293) x (1+ (1/3.8))
Fim = 2376.26N
Inner diameter of the small end d1= 𝐅g/𝐏𝐛𝟏×𝐥𝟏 =6277.167 /12.5×1.5d1=17.94mm

29
Where,
Design bearing pressure for small end pb=12.5 to 15.4N/mm2
Length of the piston pin l1= (1.5to 2) d1
Outer diameter of the small end = d1+2tb+2tm
= 17.94 + [2×2] + [2×5]
= 31.94mm
Where,
Thickness of the bush (tb) = 2 to 5 mm
Marginal thickness (tm) = 5 to 15 mm
Inner diameter of the big end
D2= Fg/ Pb2×l2 = 6277.167 10.8×1.0d1=23.88mm
Where,
Design bearing pressure for big end pb2 = 10.8 to 12.6N/mm2
Length of the crank pin l2 = (1.0 to 1.25) d2
2𝑓 1/2
Root diameter of the bolt = = (2×6277.167 π×56.667)1/2 =4mm
𝜋×𝑠

Outer diameter of the big end = d2 + 2tb + 2db+2tm

= 23.88+2×2+2×4+2×5
= 47.72mm
Where,
Thickness of the bush [tb] = 2 to 5 mm
Marginal thickness [tm] = 5 to 15 mm
Nominal diameter of bolt [db] = 1.2 x root diameter of the bolt =
1.2×4 = 4.8mm
TABLE:1
S.no Parameters(mm)
1 Thickness of the connecting rod (t) = 3.2
2 Width of the section (B = 4t) = 12.8
3 Height of the section(H = 5t) = 16
4 Height at the big end = (1.1 to 1.125)H = 17.6
5 Height at the small end = 0.9H to 0.75H = 14.4
6 Inner diameter of the small end = 17.94
7 Outer diameter of the small end = 31.94
8 Inner diameter of the big end = 23.88
9 Outer diameter of the big end = 47.72

30
FIG:1 MODELLING OF CONNECTING ROD
SKETCH OF CONNECTING ROD

FIG:2 ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTING ROD

Meshing of Connecting Rod in Tetrahedral

31
FIG:3 Loads at Boundary Conditions

FIG:4 Equivalent Stress

32
FIG-5 Normal Stress (X-Axis)

FIG-6 Normal Stress (Y-Axis)

33
FIG-7NormalStress(Z-Axis)

FIG-8 Shear Stress (XY Plane)

34
FIG-9 Shear Stress (YZ Plane)

FIG-10 Shear Stress (ZX Plane)

35
FIG-11

FIG-12 Directional Deformations (X Axis)

36
FIG-13 Directional Deformations (Y Axis)

FIG-14 Directional Deformations (Z Axis)

37
TABLE:2 Stresses and Deformation of Forged Steel
S.no Types Max (Mpa) Min (Mpa)
1 Equivalent stress 38.98 4.0317𝑒 −9
2 Normal stress (x-axis) 25.283 -15.692
3 Normal stress(y-axis) 28.088 -15.485
4 Normal stress(z-axis) 1.1978 -0.85736
5 Shear stress(xy plane) 20.166 -20.183
6 Shear stress(yz plane) 0.91522 -0.96534
7 Shear stress(zx plane) 0.7183 -0.72013
8 Total deformation 0.002593 0
9 Directional deformation 0.0005354 -0.0025925
(x-axis)
10 Directional deformation 0.0016764 -0.007687
(y-axis)
11 Directional deformation 0.00013292 -0.0001347

TABLE:3 Mechanical properties for forged steel

S.no Mechanical properties Forged steel

1 Density (g/cc) 7.7

2 Average hardness(HRB) 101

3 Modulus of elasticity,(Gpa) 221

4 Yield strength, YS,(Mpa) 625

5 Ultimate strength ,Su,(Mpa) 625

6 Percent reduction in area,%, RA 58

7 Poison ratio 0.29

38
CHAPTER6 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FORGED STEEL
Forged Steel 0.61-0.68%C, 0.2-0.4%S, 0.5-1.2%Mn, 0.04%S, 0.04%P, 0.9-
1.2%Cr
CHAPTER7 CALCULATION
7.1 Calculation for factor of safety of connecting rod
f.s = factor of safety
σm = mean stress
σy = yield stress
σv = variable stress
σe = endurance stress
1/f .s = σm/σy +σv/σe
For Forged Steel
σmax = 38.298
σmin = 4.0317×10−9
σm=(σmax + σmin)/2 = 19.149
σy = 625Mpa
σv = σmax−σmin 2 = 19.149 σe = 0.6×625=375
1/𝑓.𝑠 = 0.081= 12.23
Factor of safety [F.S] = 12.23 7.2
Calculation for Weight and Stiffness For Forged Steel:
Density of forged steel = 7.7×10−6 kg/mm3
Volume = 41050 𝑚𝑚3
Deformation = 0.0025932 mm
Weight of forged steel = volume ×density =41050×7.7×10-6
= 0.31kg
= 0.31×9.81 = 3.10 N
Stiffness = weight deformation= 3.10 /0.0025932 =1195.74 N/mm

39
7.3 Fatigue calculation
Result for fatigue of connecting rod:
3
(𝜎 )
N=1000(𝑠/0.9𝜎 )𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
0.9×𝜎𝑢

Where,
N = No. of cycles
σe = Endurance Limit
𝜎u = Ultimate Tensile Stress
𝜎e ′ = Endurance limit for variable axial stress
Ka = Load correction factor for reversed axial load = 0.8
Ksr = Surface finish factor = 1.2
Ksz = Size factor = 1 𝜎e′ =σe×ka×ksr×ksz
𝑠.𝑓 = 𝑓.𝑠σv 1−𝑓.𝑠
For Forged Steel
𝜎u=827 Mpa
σe= 𝜎u×0.5= 827×0.5
= 413.5 Mpa
𝜎e ′= σe×ka×ksr×ksz = 413.5×0.8×1.2×1 = 396.96 Mpa
Sf = f.sσv/ 1−f.sσm σu = 12.23×19.149 /1−12.23×19.149/ 827 = 234.193
= 326.713Mpa N
3
𝑙𝑜𝑔
𝜎
N=1000(𝑠𝑓/0.9𝜎) ×( )
0.9×𝑢

=8500×103

40
CONCLUSION
FOR CRANKSHAFT
The aluminum composite crankshaft has light weight about 1/3 of steel .
Equivalent elastic strain , total deformation, and stresses are approximately
equal in Al alloy composite crankshaft and structural steel crankshaft but it
comes under the permissible tolerance limit. The maximum life value is more in
an aluminum alloy crankshaft as compared to the crankshaft made of steel. Thus
a steel crankshaft can be replaced with a developed Al alloy crankshaft
FOR CONNECTING ROD
By checking and comparing the results of materials in finalizing the results are
shown in below.

Considering the parameters,

1. ANSYS Equivalent stress for the both the materials are same.
2. For the forged steel material factor of safety (from Soderberg’s) and
stiffness is increased compared to existing carbon steel.
3. The weight of the forged steel material is less than the existing carbon
steel.
4. From the fatigue analysis life time of the connecting rod can be
determined.
5. And also no. of cycles for forged steel (8500×103)is more than the
existing connecting rod (6255× 103).
6. When compared to both of the materials, forged steel is cheaper than the
existing connecting rod material.

41