Tension and Compression in

Connecting Rods
A Failure Analysis

Luke Schreier
EM 325H
 April 26, 1999
INTRODUCTION

In order to understand the true impact the automobile has had on our society, we would
have to go back in time over one hundred years. A time without the simplicity of hopping
into a vehicle to take us anywhere we want to go is almost unfathomable to many
Americans. But for the early automotive engineers, the tremendous advancements in
automotive technology would be even more surprising.

In the last 50 years, cars have learned to think, adjust, and even protect. But this is just
the tip of the iceberg. High performance is now the catch phrase. The vast majority of
people want a vehicle that will get them from point A to point B as easily as possible, but
also put a little smile on their faces. Often times, the smile is created by a quick punch of
the accelerator and accompanied by a feeling of immense power and control. The auto
manufacturers are well aware of this, and to achieve it, they design faster, lighter, and
more efficient engines to do the job. But exactly what happens inside an engine, and what
are the risks involved in designing the strongest engine on the block?

In this project, one component of an engine in particular, the connecting rod, will be
analyzed. Being one of the most integral parts in an engine’s design, the connecting rod
must be able to withstand tremendous loads and transmit a great deal of power. It is no
surprise that a failure in a connecting rod can be one of the most costly and damaging
failures in an engine. But simply saying that isn’t enough to fully understand the
dynamics of the situation.

Throughout the course of this project, an idealized model of a connecting rod, piston, and
flywheel will be modeled and analyzed. It will become apparent exactly why these parts
are so important to the operation of an automobile, and furthermore how prone to failure
they can be. However, before too much more is said on the engineering details, a little
background information is necessary.

FUNDAMENTALS
 Below is a picture of the
fundamental parts of an engine. Surface "L" is where combustion occurs, air enters
through "M", and "H" is the shaft through which power is accumulated and delivered out
of the engine. The combustion occurs against the top surface of the piston (F) and pushes
the connecting rod (G) downward, causing the shaft to move in a circular motion. So, it is
easy to see that the connecting rod harnesses all of the power produced in combustion
and converts it into something useful, in this case a spinning shaft.

ASSUMPTIONS AND FREE-BODY DIAGRAMS

Now that we are all on the same page, the assumptions for this project can be discussed.
First of all, it is necessary to point out that the actual dynamics of such a system are
tremendous, and to model all of them in one project would be quite a task. So, to
simplify, this project will neglect momentum and gravity. Only one connecting rod-piston
assembly will be considered. The crankshaft, while in actuality having a very functional
mass distribution, will be considered simply a circle (or if it is easier to visualize, a
flywheel). In effect, many of the same calculations could be performed on a more
sophisticated system, but this will suffice for the time being.

Here is what we start with:

From an understanding of statics, we can represent the connecting rod of length "l" by a
two-force member (this requires a few more assumptions, but for purposes of this project,
it is acceptable). Given this, we can split this system into two free-body diagrams:

EQUATIONS
From these free-body diagrams, we can apply Newton’s Second Law (F=ma) to write
some equations. In particular, we are interested in summing forces in the "x" direction
(horizontal), and summing the moments about the center of the flywheel. Doing so, we
acquire these equations:

Σ Mo = -FAB cos (Φ ) * rsin (Θ ) – FAB sin (Φ ) * rcos(Θ ) = I * d2Θ /dt2 (CCW positive)

Σ Fx = -FAB cos (Φ ) – P = m * d2x/dt2 (→ positive)

We can simplify the moment equation, employing the use of the double-angle
trigonometric formula:

sin (Φ + Θ ) = cos (Φ ) * sin (Θ ) + sin (Φ ) * cos (Θ )

Therefore,

-FAB * r sin (Φ + Θ ) = I * d2Θ /dt2

Now, if we solve the force equation for –FAB,

-FAB = (m * d2x/dt2 + P)/(cos (Φ ))

We can substitute this equation into our moment equation, giving us:

(m * d2x/dt2 + P)/cos (Φ ) * r sin (Φ + Θ ) = I * d2Θ /dt2

This will be our main equation of rotation.

At this point, we are working our way towards acquiring a representation of Θ , in order
to eventually find FAB. But looking at these equations, we can see that there are many
different variables to work with, including a few derivatives. In order to help simplify
them a little more, it is important to notice a few relations. For instance, we can apply the
law of sines to this triangle, found between the flywheel and piston:

sin (Θ )/l = sin (Φ )/r

This takes care of the two angles. Next, we must find an equation for x, the distance from
the center of the flywheel to the bottom of the piston. This can be found using
trigonometry:

x = l cos (Φ ) + r cos (Θ )

Unfortunately, we are not actually dealing with x in this problem, but rather d2x/dt2.
Therefore, we will have to take two derivatives of x:

dx/dt = -l sin (Φ ) * dΦ /dt – r sin (Θ ) * dΘ /dt

d2x/dt2 = -l cos (Φ )*(dΦ /dt)2 – l sin (Φ )*(d2Φ /dt2) – r cos (Θ )*(dΘ /dt)2 –

r sin (Θ )* d2Θ /dt2

With this value for d2x/dt2, we can substitute back into our main equation. However, once
again we have introduced a few more items into this scenario, in particular the first and
second derivatives or Θ and Φ . Given these terms, we will once again have to find
equations that relate them to things we already know or can find.

Because this is a long process, I will explain what is happening beforehand and then
simply show the equations. We have our equation relating Θ and Φ that was derived from
the law of sines. From this, we can take a few more derivatives to find equations for dΦ
/dt and d2Φ /dt2. It is not necessary to find the relation of the derivatives of Θ because they
will be shown in the final integrations.

Φ = sin-1((r sin (Θ ))/l)

dΦ /dt = r sin (Θ ) * dΘ /dt

l cos (Φ )

d2Φ /dt2 = -r cos (Θ ) * (dΘ /dt)2 + r sin (Θ ) * d2Θ /dt2 + sin (Φ ) * (dΦ /dt)2

l cos (Φ ) l cos (Φ ) cos (Φ )

PRESSURE IN A FOUR-STROKE ENGINE

Up to this point, the variable P has gone unmentioned. The pressure in the cylinder (P) is
not an easy thing to model for a situation like this, yet it is one of the most important
factors in the final analysis. To be able to explain how P fluctuates, it is once again
necessary to give a little background on a four-stroke engine.

A four-stroke engine is the most common type used in automobiles. The four strokes are
intake, compression, power, and exhaust. Each stroke requires approximately 180 degrees
of crankshaft (or flywheel) rotation, so the complete cycle would take 720 degrees. Each
stroke plays a very important role in the combustion process, and each has a different
pressure surrounding it.

In the intake cycle, as the picture shows, the piston is

moving downward while one of the valves is open. This creates a vacuum, and an air-fuel
mixture is sucked into the chamber. This would be cause for very little pressure on the
piston, so P is small.
 Moving on to compression, we can see that both valves
are closed, and the piston is moving upward. This creates a much larger amount of
pressure on the piston, so we would have a different representation of P in our equation
for this stroke.

The next stroke is the big one: power. This is where the
compressed air-fuel mixture is ignited with a spark, causing a tremendous jump in
pressure as the fuel burns. The pressure seems to "spike", so the most cause for concern
occurs here. (This is also the area in which the dangers of engine knock or pre-detonation
can occur, causing an even larger spike.)
 Finally, we have the exhaust stroke. In this stroke, the
exhaust valve is open, once again creating a chamber of low pressure. So, as the piston
moves back upwards, it forces all the air out of the chamber. The pressure in this region is
therefore considered very low.

So, given the understanding of how a four-stroke engine works, we must now model the
variable pressure for all 720 degrees (or 12.57 radians). Creating a piecewise-defined
function does this. However, we still need to find some basic values for the pressure, and
for the purposes of this project, a particular graphical representation was chosen:
In order to make this graph work, we assume all points are linearly connected. In other
words, three pressures were selected (5, 10, and 30 atm), and it was assumed that the
pressure increased linearly between them. With this assumption, the piecewise-defined
function became (angles in radians):

P = 10 +200*Θ 0 < Θ < .1

30 .1 ≤ Θ < .35

30 + (20-57.14*Θ ) .35 ≤ Θ < .7

10 + (5-7.14*Θ ) .7 ≤ Θ < 1.4

5 1.4 ≤ Θ < 11.87

5 + 7.14*Θ 11.87 ≤ Θ < 12.57

INTEGRATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

Now that we have everything represented in one way or another, it becomes necessary to
focus our attention on finding Θ . Because such a complicated equation cannot be solved
analytically, a numerical method needs to be used. In this particular case, given its
complexity, the Euler method of integration was chosen.

In order to perform all of the calculations, a program was written in Fortran. Essentially,
it asked for the mass, radius, and length from the user, as well as the starting values of Θ ,
dΘ /dt, and d2Θ /dt2 and the time step value, while producing the values of Θ and the
actual force in the connecting rod, FAB. In order to analyze the data over a period of time,
the Θ and FAB values were sent to a file, which was read by Microsoft Excel and graphed
over time. The two graphs, Θ vs. time and FAB vs. time, are displayed below.
Note: For purposes of this project, the following substitutions were made: the length was
set equal to 6.7 in, radius of the flywheel was 4.33 in, the radius of the piston was 2.31 in,
and the mass of the piston was 3 lbs.

DATA IMPLICATIONS

It appears from looking at the graphs that a mistake must have been made. It would take
far less time for a flywheel to rotate than the 10-15 seconds that could be inferred from
the graph of theta. In addition to that, we would also assume theta to be constantly
increasing as opposed to the rapid fluctuations it experiences here. Unfortunately, it is
very difficult to say what is causing this error. There is always the chance of
mathematical errors occurring, but it could also have been due to the fact that the system
started out from rest. In actuality, a starter would give the flywheel an initial turn or two
to get things moving, letting combustion eventually take over. However, that becomes
very difficult to model in this case.

Generally, we would assume that because our graph of theta is incorrect, the graph of
force is probably as incorrect. However, looking at it, we see that there are certain areas
where the force is much greater. This is definitely expected, but probably not to the
degree that it shows up. But, for the sake of discussion, let us just assume that the high
value of around 550,000 lbs that shows up on our graph is actually correct. Making that
assumption, we can do some calculations and relate this data to the Mechanics of
Materials.
First of all, to find the stress on the connecting rod, we use the formula:

σ = P/A (σ = stress, P = force acting on rod, A = cross-sectional area)

If we assume a connecting rod thickness of approximately .5 in and a width of 1.25 in, we

would calculate a cross-sectional area of .625 in2. Therefore, plugging in our values of
P=550,000 lbs and A=.625 in2, we would get a stress of 880,000 pounds per in2.

Now what does this value mean to us? Is this a lot of stress to place on a material? Well,
let’s assume that the two most likely materials to be used in a connecting rods are steel
and aluminum. This is actually a pretty good assumption, since the vast majority of
automobiles contain steel or aluminum rods.

STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS

To understand the strength of each material in a situation like this, we need to understand
a stress-strain diagram (pictured below). Each material behaves in a similar manner when
placed under a load. There is a period of elastic deformation, in which the material is
stretched, but it returns to its original size when unloaded. The point at which it fails to
return to the original specifications is called the yield stress. Now, in an automobile, we
would probably have to assume that this yield stress would be passed at some point, so
most connecting rods come out of engines a different size than when they were installed.

After the yield stress, another stress point can be reached called the ultimate stress point.
At this point, a material has essentially reached the point of no return. Failure is
imminent, and even a decreased amount of stress can cause fracture. So, naturally, this is
what we concern ourselves with.
For the type of steel that a connecting rod would likely be created with, the ultimate
tensile strength would be about 80 to 180 thousand pounds per in2. If aluminum were
used, the ultimate tensile strength would be closer to 70 thousand pounds per in2. So, you
can see that our connecting rod, under a stress of 880 thousand psi, would be in serious
trouble. Failure would almost definitely occur, even if incredibly high strength steel were
used.

REAL-WORLD RELATION

It is in calculations like these that automotive engineers are able to predict exactly what
materials and specifications can be used in a high-performance engine. While the data
that was produced in this project appeared to be flawed, data similar to it can be produced
for each type of engine produced. Without such knowledge, there would be a lot of
guessing, and with guessing usually comes catastrophe.

ANOTHER SOURCE ON THE MATTER

In an article appearing in the newsstand magazine "Engines", Jim McFarland writes a

nice article describing the most common types of failure in connecting rods. Much of
what he writes about is similar to the concepts in this project, but he throws in a few more
interesting comments.

For the most part, the type of fracture considered in this project occurred in the center of
the rod. McFarland also touches on failure at the connecting rod bolts. These bolts attach
the rods to the crankshaft journals, and consequently, they are placed under just as much
strain as the rod itself. He states that they are often made to withstand stresses in excess
of 250,000 psi. (Which, by the way, is an awful long was from 880,000 psi, further
showing how inaccurate our data appears to be.)

As I alluded to earlier, abnormal combustion is also a serious problem for connecting

rods. McFarland notes that under detonation conditions, the pressure from combustion
can be almost double what it normally might be. Understanding this, we can see just how
susceptible a connecting rod could be to using the wrong gasoline. (Improper octane
ratings are often a causing of pinging or knocking in an engine.)

CONCLUDING NOTES

If anything, this project should have conveyed a sense of just how erratically an engine
can operate, even under normal conditions. It is this lack of continuity that can create
major problems on parts like connecting rods. Hence, designers and engineers are forced
to choose materials that are strong enough to withstand such powerful forces, while
maintaining a low cost and lightweight product.
Despite the fact the data in this project appeared incorrect in the final analysis, the
thought process behind it was very typical of what must be done to analyze a complicated
system. If a more accurate analysis was necessary, factors like cylinder friction,
momentum, and dozens of other variables could have been taken into account. But, given
the assumptions that were made and the data acquired, this project still provided an
interesting look at what happens inside an engine and what limitations each engine has
placed upon it.

REFERENCES

1. Duffy, James E. Modern Automotive Technology. 1994, Goodheart-Wilcox

Company.
2. McFarland, Jim. "Connecting Rod Basics." Engines. March, 1999. Peterson
Publishing Company.
3. Ramos, J.I. Internal Combusion Engine Modeling. 1989, Hemisphere Publishing.
4. Gere and Timoshenko. Mechanics of Materials: Fourth Edition. 1997, PWS
Publishing Company.
5. Beer and Johnston. Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Dynamics. 1997,
WCB/McGraw-Hill.