This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Ilya Piraner, Christine Pflueger, Oliver Bouthier Cummins, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION This paper outlines the steps taken for the preliminary crankshaft and bearing design analysis at Cummins. Major crankshaft dimensions must be chosen early in the engine design process because they affect overall engine dimensions. Proper selection of the crank dimensions requires multiple design iterations to avoid design alterations during the development stage when any change is very costly. Therefore, the crankshaft and bearing analysis should be not only quick, but also accurate and robust because some of the parameters may not yet be well defined at this preliminary stage. A number of considerations need to be addressed in the preliminary crankshaft and bearing design analysis. Among these considerations are crank stress, bearing performance, integrity of the crankshaft joints, and the impact of the crank on the block stress and deformation. Though each consideration may require a detailed and complicated analysis, simplified approaches have been developed over the years by the industry and successfully applied at Cummins. This paper describes a two-stage process adopted by Cummins for crankshaft analysis. The first stage is a simplified analysis, which combines a “quasi-static” crankshaft model and a rigid hydrodynamic bearing model to address crankshaft fillet bending stress and bearing performance characteristics. The torsional vibration effects are accounted for independently based on a simple one-dimensional dynamic mass-elastic model. At the second stage, the crankshaft bending loads are combined with the torsional loads to simulate stress at any location in the crankshaft finite element (FE) model. Stresses at various locations in the crank are calculated by using sets of unit load cases applied to a single throw FE model. The appropriate unit load cases are scaled according to the load, and combined to calculate the stresses in the crank. The process is repeated in an efficient manner to simulate multiple engine conditions for rapid crankshaft and bearing preliminary design. 2. CRANKSHAFT ANALYSIS HISTORY Figure 1 gives a brief overview of the major developments in crankshaft analysis. Historically, the major concern has been around crankshaft fillet stress associated with crank bending. A so-called “statically determinate” scheme was utilized in the early days of diesel engine development. Each throw was considered separately without interaction with neighboring throws. This allows the calculation of bending moments in the webs, which, in conjunction with stress concentration factors, allow for stress calculation in the fillets. The simplicity and conservative nature of this scheme made it very popular. Application to multicylinder engines, particularly marine, led to developments in the crankshaft torsional vibration analysis focused on the stress calculation around oil holes in the pin journals. The first applications of a “statically indeterminate” scheme were based on a rigid block. Unloading action of the bending moments in the main journals caused significant reduction of the calculated bending stress. Accounting for realistic main bearing support stiffness led to some

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 1 of 13

Coupled Solution Booker’s Mobility/Impedance Method Statically Indeterminate Scheme Non-Linear Supports 1970s Late 1960s Bending + Torsion in Fillet only σ=104% Statically Indeterminate Scheme Elastic Supports σ=87% t=4× × 1960s 1940s Statically Indeterminate Scheme Rigid Supports σ=80% t=2× × Torsional Analysis t=1× × 1920s 1899 Statically Determinate Scheme t=1× σ=100% × Figure 1: Timeline of Crankshaft Analysis Processes 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 2 of 13 .2000 1999 Combined Stress Virtual Engine σ=102% (VM) σ=109% (SP) t=150× × 1985 1984 1983 1975 Cummins Coupled Solution σ=88% t=10× × Goenka’s Approximation Booker/Welsh .

Since the 60s. the crankshaft fillet bending stress has further increased due to allowance for the journal motion within the clearance space. The amplitude of the nominal stress in each pin (with no regard to stress concentration factor) is calculated.1. In the 70s attempts were made to model main bearings as nonlinear springs [1]. the effective fully reversed stress (EFR stress) to compare it against the endurance limit in the deterministic sense (fatigue margin) or in the probabilistic sense (unreliability %). follows the major failure modes: (a) fatigue through the crank web. with the torsional stress calculated based on a dynamic model using stress concentration factors has become a standard.3]. Second. The mean nominal shear stress is calculated based on the 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 3 of 13 . current traditional methods remain attractive because of their relative simplicity and because of the efficiency with which they solve. the fillet bending stress analysis uses an FE model of a single throw to calculate stress/moment ratios for two locations (pin and main fillets) for two major load cases (firing and inertia load). This allows fast calculation of the bending moments at the web center in the plane of the throw as a function of the crank angle Mb(α). Calibration of the mass–elastic model is performed by tuning the model to match experimental data. particularly since the publication of Goenka’s mobility curve fits [4]. it is multiplied by one of the stress/moment ratios for each main and pin fillet. To address these issues. one can calculate mean and amplitude of the bending stress and then. with the crack initiation starting at the main or pin fillet. combining the bending stress in the fillet calculated based on the “quasistatic” statically indeterminate scheme. The entire crankshaft is considered as a “quasi-static” beam model on non-linear supports (main bearings). First.7]. This produces stresses in the main σm(α) and the pin σp(α) fillets as a function of crank angle. This failure mode is caused by an excessive normal stress in the fillet associated with bending of the crank throw in its plane. a pin nominal torsional stress analysis is performed. Cummins has worked with the ADAMS/Engine consortium to develop a virtual engine model. which allows NVH analysis in addition to crankshaft stress analysis. Depending on the sign of the moment. coupled through the non-linear hydrodynamic bearings [6. While this approach looks promising for future application. This failure mode is caused by an excessive shear stress associated with the throw torsion. But with the development of quick and efficient methods of bearing analysis [2. The crankshaft is considered as a discrete linear dynamic torsional model. quasi-static crank model and hydrodynamic bearing model became a viable alternative. a coupled. 2. Historical Cummins Procedure The current procedure. which has been in place for about 20 years. (b) fatigue through the pin journal.increase in the fillet stress. Knowing stress over the entire engine cycle. The analysis is done in the frequency domain but time domain data can easily be generated as a synthesis of the major orders. two independent procedures were developed. As Figure 1 shows. Although modern high-speed computers have enough power to carry out this kind of simulation in a matter of hours. incorporating simpler models into ADAMS/ Engine may allow preliminary crankshaft analysis to be performed quickly within a common environment. Calculation of the torque acting in the connections between the mass stations of the model is performed with the calibrated torsional mass-elastic model. with the crack initiation starting at the oil hole. Major developments in commercial multi-body dynamics software in the late 90s made it possible to consider crankshaft dynamics along with the block dynamics. This technique was implemented in the mid-80s [5].

The character and the amplitude of the forces are very similar. On the other hand. Figure 3a. Figure 2 demonstrates the comparison between bearing reaction forces calculated with the quasi-static and dynamic models. The amplitude and the mean stresses are combined together in the “shear” EFR stress. again. static torque may vary significantly from the dynamic torque. uncalibrated cranknose torsional displacement 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 4 of 13 . (a) (b) Figure 2: Main Bearing Reactions calculated with (a) dynamic and (b) quasi-static models at 1000 rpm (a) (b) Figure 3: (a) Static vs.engine brake power. Figure 3b. The dynamic model may be tuned easily to match experimental data. which compared against the crank nominal torsional endurance limit. Dynamic Torque. (b) Calibrated vs. in the deterministic and/or probabilistic sense. even away from resonance. this approach was confirmed in many experimental studies carried out in the 60s and 70s. Although consideration of bending and torsional loads based on different crank models (one static and the other dynamic) may be viewed as an inconsistency.

all the features in the entire crankshaft should be modeled sufficiently accurately at the same time. Stress shapes are obtained from an FE analysis.Scale and sum up the FE results for each crank angle according to the loads found in the first step.Run analysis applying all possible loads (at the pin and main bearing locations) as unit factors (pressure distributed over bearing area) one at a time.2. . . z. The underling assumption is that the way the crankshaft load is applied does not affect the stress in the throw as long as the load results in a certain average displacement of the main 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 5 of 13 . These are multiplied by the modal participation factors and summed up to obtain total stress. γ) and sum them up to produce the combined stress tensor.Cut out one throw of the crank through the main journal middle cross-sections (detailed FE). γ1 – angular displacements. and (b) based on single throw. Number of load cases: 6 × # different throws. but this requires that the process be repeated multiple times. In this case the actual loads are applied to the crank instead of unit load factors. Yet another method used by GM/LMS [8] and MDI [9] is to perform a crankshaft dynamic analysis to obtain modal participation factors at each point in time. x1. Total number of load cases: 9 × # throws + 5 + 1 load cases for the entire crank . great computational power is required.Constrain one cross-section and apply unit kinematic boundary conditions. . Alternatively.60 for a 6 in-line engine. Since direction of the bearing load is unknown.Run full crank reduced model (dynamic) to calculate main bearing reactions and torques. . the load is applied at each of four 90-degree arc.Run dynamic analysis on a reduced model.Model entire crankshaft with FEM . This requires that the FE solution be performed for every crank angle and multiple engine conditions. Therefore. β1. Modern Approaches to Crankshaft Combined Stress Analysis There are two major approaches for stress calculation: (a) based on entire crank. The first procedure can be described as follows: . Figure 4: Whole crank model Number of load cases: Pin bearing load − (4 × # throws) + Main bearing load − (4 × (# throws +1)) + Vibratory torque − (1 × (# throws +1)) + Crank inertia −1 case. FEV employs a variation on this method [6]. .Scale stress tensors based on the displacements found in the dynamic analysis (x.2. individual portions of the crankshaft may be modeled in detail. y. z1 − translational and α1. . β. y1. as shown in Figure 4. According to these approaches.Constrain the model at the flywheel end. one at a time and obtain corresponding stress states. . Another approach is published by AVL [10] and can be described as follows: . α.

utilize our tools and experience As discussed previously. 2. and auto mesh with mesh refinements in areas of interest. Figure 5. Therefore. there is a high level of confidence in our current tools for crankshaft load prediction. THROW 3 Oil holes with fillets/chamfer THROW 5 Lightening pockets Figure 5: Two different single-throw sections of crankshaft from CAD model for FE analysis 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 6 of 13 . it was found that stress in the crank web pockets and in the end couterbore is very sensitive to the way the load is applied.journal middle cross-section. it was decided to combine the bending loads coming from static crank and bearing analysis with the torsional loads coming from dynamic torsional analysis. The proposed method is a generalization of our current approach to the crankshaft stress analysis and consists of 3 steps: a) Cut out a single throw. the stress may vary by 20% depending on how the load is applied (on the top portion of the pin – firing load.3. New Cummins Method for Combined Stress Analysis Objectives: . or on the bottom portion – inertia load). ADAMS) at a later time. The procedure can also be used with crank loads from different simulation software (e.g. Also. Our experience says that. import into ANSYS. at least for fillets in bending.method should be quick and accurate .account for first order effects .

4 F2f 1.1 Crank inertia force at unit speed Figure 8: Crankshaft inertia force 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 7 of 13 .6 Mb 2.2 F1i 1.Consider the following load cases for a detailed FE model.1 F1f 1.8 Ttv Figure 7: Crankshaft Out-of-Plane Loads Crankshaft inertia force represents a separate load case.6 Mb Figure 6: Crankshaft In-Plane Loads 2.4 T F2p T 2.3 Mb 1.5 F2i 1.3 2. Figure 6 − Figure 8: 1. which may be in-plane or of a general nature: 3.2 F1n Mb 2.1 T F1p T 2.7 T T T 2.5 F2p 2.

Mb designates bending moment.4 and 2. though. the moment may be applied as an additional moment at the end of the throw. In the first case. In case of an in-line engine only one set of these loads is used. In the event that future analysis accounts for moments in the bearings. For each load case stress tensor {Si}j can be obtained for each node of the FE model. and 1. Figure 9: 1 2 3 4 Figure 9: Constraints at the main bearings Real load application at the main bearing depends on the hydrodynamic conditions in the bearing and will vary from crank angle to crank angle. This approach ensures reasonable pressure distribution while avoiding a lengthy calculations involving modeling a non-linear contact between journal and the bearing. 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 8 of 13 . where “j” is node number and “i” is the stress component.1. The layers should be divided in segments to enable proper load application without over-stiffening the journal.4 and 1. T designates torque and F designates the force applied to the crank pin. Since the direction of the main bearing reactions is not known at this point in the analysis. which in turn is surrounded by a stiff layer constrained at the middle point as shown in Figure 10. which can be done automatically if the journal is placed on a soft layer. However. the following four types of constraints for each load case are considered. In case of out-of-plane loading.5 represent the back cylinder loads of a Vtype engine.1.8 represents a vibratory torque applied to the throw due to the torsional vibration.5) results in a certain torque in the main journal. 2. Therefore. the resultant bearing load should be applied at the middle of the journal.2 represent front cylinder loads of a V-type engine. it is reasonable to assume that due to clearance in the bearing a little bending moment is generated in the bearing. This has to be accounted for in the boundary conditions for the corresponding load case. 2. which should balance the torque induced by the load. Cases 1. or (11 × 4 × #different throws) load cases for an in-line engine. to distribute the load over the bearing area. Case 2. the load is applied on the top portion of the pin while in the second case the load is applied on the bottom portion. Load cases 1. 1. Soft layer Journal Stiff layer Figure 10: Modeling journal/bearing interactions This results in (15 × 4 × #different throws) load cases for a v-type engine. It is important.2.6 simulate bending moment in the cross-section resulting from the neighboring throw.3 and 1. Similarly. application of the pin load (2.

a FE package (ANSYS) may be used to display the results on the model surface. R = [ Rx . T . Fx . M y . c) A Fortran routine calculates stress for each node at each crank angle {σ}={S}{L1} and then converts it into EFR stress and. Fx . Bending moment. Ry .ω ] . The overall process is summarized in the flowchart. T . Ry ] (2) where: bending moment in the main journal MTtorque in the main journal Fforce applied to pin journal Rforce applied to the main journal Indices “f” and ‘b” indicate front and back position Indices “x” and “y” indicate two projections of the load. R] (1) f f b b f b f f b b f f b b L1′ = [ M x . Nodal Coordinates data for result visualization Throw Loads corrected for torsional dynamics Combined Stress Figure 11: Flow chart of new crank analysis process 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 9 of 13 . which can be written as a vector L: L′ = [ L1 ' . Fy . M x . Fy . The scale factor for the vibratory torque can be calculated based on the pin loads and the torque in the main journals as follows: S y = T f − Tb − ( Fyf + Fyb ) (3) Finally.b) Quasi-static crank and bearing analysis + dynamic torsional analysis or ADAMS provide real values for load factors for each crank angle and each throw. into fatigue margin and unreliability for each node. The sign of the pin loads is used to differentiate between the load cases. while the sign of the reaction force (R) is used to differentiate between the boundary conditions for a given load case. M y . Rx . crank pin loads and the engine speed are used directly as the scale factors for the stress states {S}. finally. Figure 11. Quasi-static crank and bearing analysis Throw Loads CAD/FEA Mass Characteristics Stress/ Moment and Stiffness Cylinder Pressure for torsionals Crank/Slider Parameters PRO E Crank Throw Solid Model ANSYS Dynamic torsional analysis Stress Under Unit Load Factors {S}.

The results file contains all the specific input information. σ3 – principal stresses.Calculate maximum and minimum for all individual components of the stress tensor.Calculate amplitude for all individual stress components and the average hydrostatic pressure σp over the engine cycle. It basically defines the crank structure. oil holes.Combine the amplitudes of the stress components in the Von Mises amplitude stress: 1 σ ae = (σ a1 − σ a 2 ) 2 + (σ a 2 − σ a 3 ) 2 + (σ a 3 − σ a1 ) 2 (5) 2 . It also defines material properties and the portion of the FE model for which the analysis should be performed by sorting nodes by location and/or by the node numbers. . as well as unreliability and maximum component stress for each node of the selected portion of the model in the format ANSYS can read and plot on the model. The second file is used to define more than one location for which the analysis should be performed (crank webs. σ1.Calculate EFR stress: σ ae (6) σ efr = σp 1− σ tfs Finally. The EFR stress is calculated in two ways: a) Sorted principal stress . the parameters may be left unchanged. an output file is generated which contains amplitude. .Calculate σ1max and σ3min over the engine cycle. b) Von Mises based EFR stress . The first file defines the load cases used in the analysis and the way EFR stress is calculated. It may use load files with different constraints to see the effect of boundary conditions. Maximum stress and unreliability are calculated for each location and then the local unreliabilities are combined in the component total unreliability. it can use a load file with torque from a static or dynamic analysis to assess the effect of crankshaft torsionals. σ m = 1 max (3) σ a = 1 max 2 2 . The program is made flexible so that different options can be explored. In addition to the files containing load and stress information.Calculate mean and amplitude stress: − σ 3 min ) + σ 3 min ) (σ (σ . Those options may be used in the research mode to establish the analysis process.Calculate EFR stress: σa (4) σ efr = σm 1− σ tfs where σtfs – true fracture strength. For example. etc). . σ2. but once the process is defined. This allows a user to assign different material properties to different portions of the FE model. node with maximum EFR stress and corresponding unreliability. mean and the EFR stress. and then for each location it stores a node with maximum component stress.The unit load stress files and the throw load history files are used to calculate stress for each crank angle and convert it into EFR stress for each node in the selected portion of the model. 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 10 of 13 . two other input files are read in.

they should be the same. RESULTS Figure 12 shows EFR stress distributions along the crankshaft in the fillets and in the pin journal oil holes. However. in the case of the current model stress-to-moment ratio is defined based on the nodes in the plane of symmetry and the stress is averaged over some arc.3. In fact. the true maximum stress is considered. where SP designates Sorted Principal EFR stress and VM – Von Mises EFR stress. Figure 12: Variation of Stress along Crankshaft at Specific Locations 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 11 of 13 . It can be seen that the current model stress is very close to the combined stress if the sorted principal approach is used and only in-plane loads are considered. while in the combined stress analysis.

Application of this technique has shown that although the crankshaft fillet stress is predominantly due to bending. Figure 13 plots the EFR stress (SP) under all loads back on the FE model for several locations. Comparing stress in the pin and the main fillets. one can see that the pin fillet is more sensitive to the torsional stress. In its current state it utilizes load factors obtained through crankshaft quasi-static bending analysis and dynamic torsional analysis. torsional load can add up to 20% to the fillet bending stress. With the Von Mises stress approach. CONCLUSIONS • • A new procedure for combined stress analysis has been developed. however. there is no significant difference between the sorted principal and the Von Mises stress approach. Oil hole Main fillet Pin fillet Lightening pockets Figure 13: EFR Stress (SP) at several locations on FE Model 4. but it could be adapted to accept loads obtained through full crankshaft dynamic analysis (ADAMS). while the oil hole stress is mostly due to torsion. the maximum stress occurs in the last web where the maximum bending moment is achieved. a more uniform stress distribution along the crankshaft is observed because the Von Mises stress is more sensitive to the shear component of the stress tensor.Using the sorted principal approach. For the oil hole. on the other hand. Therefore. 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 12 of 13 . This validates the traditional analysis at the preliminary stage of crankshaft design. The true stress is approximately 4 times higher than the nominal stress in the pin journal. consideration of the combined stress may shift the location of maximum stress to the pin fillet. even though in some cases maximum bending stress may occur in the main fillet.

Also. J. The calculation may be carried out for multiple engine conditions in a reasonable amount of time. J. “Dynamic Crankshaft Stress Calculation Using a Combination of MSS and FEA”. J. Vol.W.H. K. Jones. 5. “Stress Recovery in Engine and Powertrain Applications Using DADS. Troy. K. No 3.. “Integration of Physical and Virtual Prototypes”. 2. J. P. Rebbert. “Enhanced Crankshaft Stress Calculation Method”. Vol. and Kley. Zwaanenburg. 1972. Journal of Lubrication Technology. pp. 3. October 1984. Trans. pp. MI. H. 4. “Dynamic Analysis of Engine Bearing System”. A. Journal of Tribology. Series D. Welsh. Goenka. SAE 2002-01-1290. Proceedings SAE Noise and Vibrations Conference and Exposition. where the contributions of bending and torsion may be more comparable.• • • The new procedure can be applied to locations other than the fillets or the oil hole.. 421-428. and Priebsch. pp. J. Trondheim. No 8. Lach.87. 9. R. ASME. LMS 2001 Conference for Physical and Virtual Prototyping. 5. T. W.. ASME. H. F. Booker. 7. Du. Rapp Inst. P. 8. “Main Bearing Loads Calculated with the Crankshaft Carried on Flexible Supports having non-linear spring Characteristics”. September 1965. P. it can be applied to a non-traditional crankshaft configurations such as split pin design.. January 1971. 1983. MI. 10.106. “Dynamically loaded Journal Bearings: Mobility Method of Solution”. 168-176. M. I. F. May 1999. The procedure may be incorporated into ADAMS/ Engine to allow preliminary crankshaft analysis to be performed quickly within a common environment. Vol. and Booker. 1983 SAE International Congress. M. FEV. Univ. No 1. AVL. Kley. Raub. Trans. ASME. REFERENCES 1. Farbrannigmot. Booker. pp. NTH. Paper No 830065. “Dynamically loaded Journal Bearings: Numerical application of the Mobility Method”. M. Resch. Journal of Basic Engineering.537-546. Trans. Series F. 1-73. F. Selim. Rasser. September 2001. “Analytical Curve Fits for Solution Parameters of Dynamically Loaded Journal Bearings”.93. Detroit. 6. “Analytical Investigation of Crankshaft Dynamics as a Virtual Engine Module”. and Rebbert. M. 2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 13 of 13 .

- MatchingofchartsAnewapproachBW.pdf
- vedic-chart-pdf.pdf
- Idael-Isar Boiler Manual
- Ibc - A Guide to Your Ctax Bill 2016-17
- A36314W
- A23503 50CrVA Steel Plate,A23503 50CrVA Spring Steel
- 14702182141456577_03082016 (1)
- Axialkolbenpumpen Baureihe LPV Danfoss
- Basic_Hydraulic_And_Components_(Pub._ES-100-2)_.pdf
- hyd_manual.pdf
- PPIRProcessOverview.pdf
- ford_specifics_for_ppapjune2013.pdf
- q_9150_test_and_delivery_to_warehouse iss L.xlsx
- eng_5060_testing_of_products iss H.pdf
- eng_5020_ecr_eco_process_iss L.pdf
- eng_5010_npsi_iss H
- p Pir Process Overview
- Music Theory
- Aerodynamics 2 Summary
- List D20CBDEC 5823 C41F 149E 1B2F71F6A8A5 Bibliography
- Iso Select
- 2008LECT10_HST
- Material Properties
- Catia v6 eBook (Kagment Solutions)
- 21417

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- connecting rod presentation
- Discussion- Yield Line Analysis of Bolted Hanging Connections
- ME PDF
- Chapter 3 - Torsion
- Engine Bearings
- Bug Pack Catalog
- MATH_Timber_Design_and_Construction_Meth-2.docx
- 05-01ChapGere
- CE579 Half Course Summary
- IES Mechanical Engineering Paper 2 2000
- 1a_doit
- 2014 8th WL Torsion F
- Lecture 18
- Sheet Metal Forming PS
- 3D Printed Stirling Engine
- Supplement
- HOMEWORKS-02.pdf
- t31pg153
- Pengguna pembaca layar
- Mechanics of structures 2 marks
- 8. Torsion of Multi-Cell Cross-Section - Hw7_b
- fem
- Strut and Tie Model for the Calculation of Plastic Rotation Capacity
- Ar 4103272273
- rathole stability.pdf
- Beams and Loadings
- me_350_-_lect_24_-_final_review.20090430.49f93b452ea739.00042752.ppt
- IES OBJ Civil Engineering 2007 Paper I
- 08-238
- 5___6_Syllabus_22_1_10_VTU(2)
- Cummins Pfleuger Paper