Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
In this study a dynamic simulation was conducted on a
crankshaft from a single cylinder four stroke engine.
Finite element analysis was performed to obtain the
variation of stress magnitude at critical locations. The
pressure-volume diagram was used to calculate the load
boundary condition in dynamic simulation model, and
other simulation inputs were taken from the engine
specification chart. The dynamic analysis was done
analytically and was verified by simulation in ADAMS
which resulted in the load spectrum applied to crank pin
bearing. This load was applied to the FE model in
ABAQUS, and boundary conditions were applied
according to the engine mounting conditions. The
analysis was done for different engine speeds and as a
result critical engine speed and critical region on the
crankshaft were obtained. Stress variation over the
engine cycle and the effect of torsional load in the
analysis were investigated. Results from FE analysis
were verified by strain gages attached to several
locations on the crankshaft. Results achieved from
aforementioned analysis can be used in fatigue life
calculation and optimization of this component.
INTRODUCTION
Crankshaft is a large component with a complex
geometry in the engine, which converts the reciprocating
displacement of the piston to a rotary motion with a four
link mechanism. This study was conducted on a single
cylinder four stroke cycle engine.
Rotation output of an engine is a practical and applicable
input to other devices since the linear displacement of
an engine is not a smooth output as the displacement is
caused by the combustion of gas in the combustion
chamber. A crankshaft changes these sudden
displacements to a smooth rotary output which is the
input to many devices such as generators, pumps,
compressors.
A detailed procedure of obtaining stresses in the fillet
area of a crankshaft was introduced by Henry et al. [1],
1
LOAD ANALYSIS
The crankshaft investigated in this study is shown in
Figure 1 and belongs to an engine with the configuration
shown in Table 1 and piston pressure versus crankshaft
angle shown in Figure 2. Although the pressure plot
changes for different engine speeds, the maximum
pressure which is much of our concern does not change
and the same graph could be used for different speeds
[9]. The geometries of the crankshaft and connecting rod
from the same engine were measured with the accuracy
of 0.0025 mm (0.0001 in) and were drawn in the I-DEAS
software, which provided the solid properties of the
connecting rod such as moment of inertia and center of
gravity (CG). These data were used in ADAMS software
to simulate the slider-crank mechanism. The dynamic
analysis resulted in angular velocity and angular
acceleration of the connecting rod and forces between
the crankshaft and the connecting rod.
Fz
Fx Fy
100
40000
Crankshaft radius
Piston Diameter
Mass of the connecting rod
Mass of the piston assembly
Connecting rod length
Izz of connecting rod about the
center of gravity
Distance of C.G. of connecting
rod from crank end center
Maximum gas pressure
80
37 mm
89 mm
0.283 kg
0.417 kg
120.78 mm
35 Bar
180
15
10
5
0
500
0
720-10000
540
-40
-20000
-60
-30000
Acceleration
-40000
20
400
360
25
300
-20 0
28.6 mm
30
200
35
100
10000
20
-100
40
20000
40
-80
0.66310-3 kg-m2
30000
Velocity
60
600
700
20
15
Force (kN)
10
Total
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-5
Bending
Torsional
-10
Max Torsion
Range of Bending
Range of Torsion
25
20
15
10
0
2000
2800
3600
c
1
A-A
A
3
2
200
2
3
Fixed ring in
directions 1 & 2
o
over 180
150
Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom
o
over 180
100
50
180
360
540
720
-50
Maximum
Minimum
Range
Mean
250
200
150
100
50
Total
Total
Total
Total
min stress
max stress
stress range
mean stress
100
-50
Location Number
80
60
Max
Mean
3600
Range
100
50
0
3000
2000
-20
-80
150
2500
-60
200
2000
20
-40
250
-50
1500
40
3500
4000
200
von Mises Stress Magnitude (MPa)
FEA
(MPa)
Location a
EXP
%
(MPa) Difference
-61.6
-59.3
61.5
65.5
3.8%
6.5%
FEA
(MPa)
86.9
Location b
EXP
%
(MPa)
Difference
81.4
6.4%
-86.7
-90.3
4.2%
FEA
(MPa)
Location d
EXP
%
(MPa)
Difference
FEA
(MPa)
Location c
EXP
%
(MPa) Difference
-890
-76.4
-71.7
6.1%
75.5
71.7
5.0%
890
76.3
75.8
0.5%
-75.6
-76.5
1.3%
Load
(N)
150
100
50
0
0
10
10
11
12
-50
Tim e
Figure 13: Rain flow count of the von Mises stress with
consideration of sign at location 2 at engine speed of
2000 rpm
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions could be drawn from this
study:
1. Dynamic loading analysis of the crankshaft results in
more realistic stresses whereas static analysis
provides an overestimate results. Accurate stresses
are critical input to fatigue analysis and optimization
of the crankshaft.
2. There are two different load sources in an engine;
inertia and combustion. These two load source
cause both bending and torsional load on the
crankshaft.
3. The maximum load occurs at the crank angle of 355
degrees for this specific engine. At this angle only
bending load is applied to the crankshaft.
4. Considering torsional load in the overall dynamic
loading conditions has no effect on von Mises stress
at the critically stressed location. The effect of
torsion on the stress range is also relatively small at
other locations undergoing torsional load. Therefore,
the crankshaft analysis could be simplified to
applying only bending load.
5. Critical locations on the crankshaft geometry are all
located on the fillet areas because of high stress
gradients in these locations which result in high
stress concentration factors.
6. Superposition of FEM analysis results from two
perpendicular loads is an efficient and simple
method of achieving stresses at different loading
conditions according to forces applied to the
crankshaft in dynamic analysis.
7. Experimental and FEA results showed close
agreement, within 7% difference. These results
indicate non-symmetric bending stresses on the
crankpin bearing, whereas using analytical method
predicts bending stresses to be symmetric at this
location. The lack of symmetry is a geometry
deformation effect, indicating the need for FEA
REFERENCES
1. Henry, J., Topolsky, J., and Abramczuk, M., 1992,
Crankshaft Durability Prediction A New 3-D
Approach, SAE Technical Paper No. 920087,
Society of Automotive Engineers
2. Guagliano, M., Terranova, A., and Vergani, L., 1993,
Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Stress
Concentration Factor in Diesel Engine Crankshafts,
Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 115, pp. 47-52
3. Payar, E., Kainz, A., and Fiedler, G. A., 1995,
Fatigue Analysis of Crankshafts Using Nonlinear
Transient Simulation Techniques, SAE Technical
Paper No. 950709, Society of Automotive Engineers
4. Prakash, V., Aprameyan, K., and Shrinivasa, U.,
1998, An FEM Based Approach to Crankshaft
Dynamics and Life Estimation, SAE Technical
Paper No. 980565, Society of Automotive Engineers
5. Borges, A. C. C., Oliveira, L. C., and Neto, P. S.,
2002, Stress Distribution in a Crankshaft Crank
Using a Geometrucally Restricted Finite Element
Model, SAE Technical Paper No. 2002-01-2183,
Society of Automotive Engineers