Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016
Fatigue Analysis and Validation of Fracture Split Connecting
Rod for Value Engineering Using 1D and 3D Simulation Tools
Suresh Kumar Kandreegula, Sonu Paroche, Sayak Mukherjee, Diwakar Ayyar,
and Umashanker Gupta
VE Commercial Vehicles, Ltd.
CITATION: Kandreegula, S., Paroche, S., Mukherjee, S., Ayyar, D. et al., "Fatigue Analysis and Validation of Fracture Split
Connecting Rod for Value Engineering Using 1D and 3D Simulation Tools," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1735, 2016,
doi:10.4271/2016-01-1735.
Copyright © 2016 SAE International and Copyright © 2016 TSAE
Abstract
To compete with the current market trends there is always a need to
arrive at a cost effective and light weight designs, hence the need for
upgrading the existing/proven integral connecting rod to fracture split
connecting rod. This technique provides gains as weight reduction
and consequently reducing noise and vibration due to the decrease of
the oscillating mass from the system. Using the proposed fracture
split connecting rod, it is estimated that cost savings of up to 10%,
reduction in weight and better fatigue performance (25% - 30%) can
be achieved. For this, we have used simulation tools to reduce
number of physical tests and thereby achieving considerable
reduction in design and development time and cost.
High carbon alloy steel used for manufacturing fracture split
connecting rod and it doesn’t require additional heat treatment after
hot forging. Fracture split connecting rod is made of single forged
blank and later splitted into two parts (Cap & Shank) unlike
conventional type of connecting rods, in which shank and cap are
separately forged and machined. In fracture split connecting rod - the
requirement of additional machining of mating surface is prevented,
which means a substantial savings in machining cost. Besides, a firm
contact between shank and cap improves stiffness and compatibility
with other crank-train moving parts - a definite merit in engine
performance [2].
The present study undertakes a FEA based approach for development
of fracture split connecting rod. Also it is aimed to predict the fatigue
life of the connecting rod under operating loads.
Tensile & Compressive loads coming on the connecting rod were
calculated from 1D Software (AVL Excite). These loads were
applied on the connecting rod in four load steps i.e. Interference,
Assembly loads, tensile load & compressive load using 3D
Software (Ansys). Then, the stress results from stress analysis were
used as an Input to the fatigue solver (FEMFAT) for evaluating
fatigue strength of connecting rod. And lastly, these results were
experimentally validated.
2016-01-1735
TSAE-16IC-1735
Published 03/27/2016
Keywords
Fracture Split, Fatigue, Validation, Simulation Tools, Connecting Rod
Introduction
In recent times due to rapid development in manufacturing techniques
of automobile components, there has been a continuous increase in
severity of competition in automotive market. Thus the automotive
vehicle manufacturers need to make use of more efficient
manufacturing processes that are cost effective to keep up with the
market competition.
The connecting rod is an important component of engine and whose
function is to transfer the thrust of piston to crankshaft thus
converting the linear movement of piston in the cylinder to rotary
motion of the crankshaft. The traditional method of manufacturing
the connecting rod include either forging the rod and end cap
separately or forging the rod as single piece, with a slightly egg
shaped big end. The end cap is then cut off from the rod and
machined for a precise fit. In this method both the parts of the
connecting rod must have high precision mating surface which
require finishing cut and grinding on the surfaces. This leads to
increase in machine time and overall cost of production. To overcome
these difficulties fracture splitting technique is used for connecting
rod manufacturing. Fracture splitting method has many advantages
over traditional method. One tenth of the total manufacturing cost can
be reduced as precision machining of mating surface of the rod and
cap is not required. Secondly, greater roundness and accuracy at the
mating surface ensure increase in bearing life and capacity. Fracture
split connecting rods are lighter and have longer service life.
In fracture splitting process, the connecting rod is forged as single
piece metal. From the inner side of the big end, two symmetrical
notches with similar dimensions are first broached forming the
starting point of splitting cracks out of stress concentration effect. It
is pierced with a wedge shaped push key. The wedge carries a striker
cap, against which a falling weight impacts to rapidly strain the rod
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016
cap, resulting in snapping of the big end from the rod. This process
results in an uneven fracture surface on the rod and cap parts. This
uneven surface allows for a more precise, durable cap-to-rod fit than
is possible with traditionally manufactured connecting rods as shown
in Figure 1.
The FE study consists of analysis of the connecting rod under
assembly loads and operation loads applied in sequential load
steps, the interpretation and validation of the results obtained from
static analysis. The static results are imported into fatigue solver
FEMFAT to determine the fatigue life of the connecting rod. The
fatigue life obtained from FEMFAT is then correlated with the
physical testing results.
Figure 1. Connecting Rod - Conventional/Fractured
Process Implementation
To reduce the product development time and yet achieve optimum
connecting rod design the need for accurate finite element analysis
was realised.
For accurately predicting the performance of fracture split connecting
rod the entire simulation process was carried out in two steps:-
1. Static Analysis - The connecting rod was analyzed under
assembly loads and operational loads to predict the induced
stresses under such loading conditions. The predicted stresses
were validated with physical strain gauge testing to check the
correctness of the modeling process.
2. Fatigue Life Estimation - The stress results thus obtained from
static analysis were used as an Input to the Fatigue Solver
(FEMFAT) for obtaining the fatigue life of the connecting rod.
And lastly, rigorous rig testing was done to validate the fatigue
life obtained from FEMFAT.
The establishment of an accurate analysis process will reduce the
product design cycle and corresponding prototype testing requirement
thus reducing the time and cost at the product development stage.
Finite Element Modeling
The 3-D geometry of the connecting rod is generated using solid
modeling software package Pro-E. The CAD data is then converted to
initial graphics exchange specification (IGES/STP) format and imported
into pre-processing software HyperMesh™. 2nd order 3-d tetra elements
are used to create FE model of the connecting rod assembly.
Figure 2 shows the Finite Element Model of the connecting rod
assembly meshed using ANSYS user profile of HypermeshTM. The
crankshaft assembly considered for FE Analysis consists of rod and
end cap, bolts used to position the joining surfaces, bearings at both
the small end and big end for applying the interference load and
piston pin for applying the gas force [4].
Figure 2. Connecting Rod Assembly - FE Model
Contact Details and Bolt Pretension
The following contacts between different components are considered for
the analysis and these contact types are characterization of Ansys solver.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016
Big end connecting rod contacts as shown in the Figure 3,
• “Rough” contact behavior was used at the cap-to-rod interface.
• “Standard” contact behavior was used to model the bolt head-to-
cap interface.
• “Bonded Always” contact behavior was used to model the bolt
thread-to-rod interface.
• Diametric interference used for the interference fit at the big end
between bearing shell & rod & cap.
• We have used friction coefficient of 0.15.
Figure 3. Contact Details - Sectional View (Big End)
Small end Connecting rod contacts as shown in the Figure 4,
• “Standard” contact behavior was used for all the remaining
contact interfaces
• Diametric interference used for the interference fit at the small
end between piston bush & rod.
• We have used friction coefficient of 0.15.
Figure 4. Contact Details - Sectional View (Small End)
To overcome any convergence issues mapped mesh between the
contact surfaces were considered [5].
To simulate the effect of load due to bolt torque, pretension of 48 KN
was applied on the bolt.
Loading Conditions
1D Simulation Tool AVL Excite was used for crank-train analysis and
the inertial and gas pressure loads at connecting rod was extracted for
further fatigue strength evaluation, as shown in the Figure 5.
Figure 5. Force Vs Time/Crank Angle
The load transferred to connecting rod small end is the net load
transfer from in-cylinder combustion pressure force and the inertia
force, coming from piston & connecting rod small end assembly. In
order to evaluate net forces, the individual forces must be known. For
combustion pressure, 1D thermodynamic simulation Tool ‘AVL
Boost’ was used and the design pressure was used in 1D Software
‘AVL Excite’ for connecting rod load calculation, as shown in the
Figure 6.
The Mass Forces are classified in two ways -
1. Oscillating forces from piston-assembly and connecting rod
small end assembly.
2. Rotating forces from connecting rod big end assembly rotation
Figure 6. Inertial Forces in Crank train System
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016

Static Analysis
The static analysis of the connecting rod was carried out in four load
steps, as shown in the Figure 7. The load steps include

• Interference load due to interference fit at both the big and small
end between bearing shell and rod & cap :: LC1
• Assembly loads which consists of load due to bolt pretension and
interference load (Interference + Bolt Pretension 48 KN) :: LC2
• Max Inertia / Tension Load :: LC3
• Max Gas / Compression Load :: LC4

The interference load b/w the small & big end of the connecting rod
and bearing shell is applied using contact manager tool in ANSYS.
The actual interference value is taken into account for accurately
Figure 8. Strain gauge locations and Corresponding CAE results
modelling load due to interference fit. The bolt preload is modelled
using PRETS179 elements in ANSYS [5]. Table 1. Test Results Vs CAE Results

After the connecting rod assembly has been accurately modelled and
the stress and displacement results for static run is obtained, the stress
files are used as input to the fatigue solver FEMFAT for analysis of
Fatigue performance/life of the connecting rod under given load
conditions. The results from these cases were used in the setup & run
fatigue load step as LC4 - LC2.
• The FEA results obtained using CAE tools were verified with
the test strain/stress results by using strain gauge test, as shown
in Figure 8.
• Almost 95% correlation achieved with Strain test data and CAE
simulation tool.

Fatigue Analysis: Life Estimation

The fatigue life method (S-N Method) are generally used in design
problems where load amplitudes are predictable and consistent over
the life of the part and the stress induced due to loading is well below
the elastic limit. To determine the strength of materials under the
action of fatigue loads, specimens are subjected to repeated or
varying forces of specified magnitudes while the cycles or stress
reversals are counted to destruction. The fluctuating loads acting on
the assembly comprise of the compressive gas loads and tensile
inertial loads [6].

Factors that affect fatigue life include magnitude of stress (mean,

amplitude) and quality of the surface (scratches, sharp transitions
and edges).

Output safety factors for the fatigue analysis are safety factor A &
safety factor B, as defined below. Following definition is taken from
FEMFAT manual, as shown in the Figure 9.

Figure 7. Gas Pressure and Inertia Load

In order to verify the accuracy of the FEA results the connecting rod
was strain gauged at the various critical positions and rig tested for
standard VECV load case.

Figure 9. Fatigue FOS calculations

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016

Mean Stress Effects

The presence of a mean-stress component has a significant effect on
fatigue failure. When a mean component of stress is added to the
alternating component, the material fails at lower alternating stresses
than it does under fully reverse loading. The interference and
pretension loads constitute the mean stress in the connecting rod
assembly. Haigh’s diagram is used as mean stress correction model
for our analysis, as shown in the Figure 10. Haighs diagram is
modified form of Goodman’s diagram which gives the relation
between stress amplitude and mean stress for various test specimens
having identical fatigue properties [1].

Figure 11. Fatigue Life Evaluation for Load Case 2

Surface Quality
Figure 12, shows the fatigue life of the assembly as determined by
Components with higher surface roughness are more prone to fatigue
FEMFAT for particular cyclic loads i.e. compressive load 235 KN
failures than polished specimens from which the S-N curve is
and tensile load 0 KN.
obtained [1].

Figure 10. Haigh Diagram

Figure 12. Fatigue Life Evaluation for Load Case 4

Size Factor
Components of different size show different fatigue behavior as there Experimental Test Setup and Results
is a probability of the material containing microscopic flaws [1]. As per VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd, standard rig for Connecting rod
has been setup as shown in the Figure 13. Connecting rod tested with
FEMFAT Influence Factors & analysis settings used different cover factors for 5 different samples with defined duty
cycles, as shown in the below table 2. This fracture split connecting
• Temperature Influence : OFF rod has completed the entire duty cycles without any failures and
• Stress Gradient: ON passed the VECV durability criteria.
• Mean Stress: ON
• Mean Stress Rearrangement: ON
• Modified Haigh Diagram: ON
• Statistics Influence: ON
• Survival Probability: 99.99 %
• Range of Dispersion (10-90%) : 1.35
• Surface Roughness: 60 μm.
• Technological Size Influence: 7.5 mm

Figure 13. Experimental Setup for Fatigue Life Evaluation

Results and Discussion’s
Table 2. Test Results
CAE Fatigue Results
The following Figure 11 shows the fatigue life of the assembly as
determined by FEMFAT for particular cyclic loads i.e. compressive
load 206.4 KN and tensile load 24 KN.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to You By KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Thursday, December 08, 2016

Cover Factor 3. Gu.Z., Yang.S., Ku.S., Zhao.Y., Dai X., “Fracture splitting
Cover factor is calculated taking into account losses due to technology of automobile engine connecting rod”, DOJ.
embedding, relaxation and temperature effects on preloads. This 10.1007/s00170-003-2022-2.
cover factor was compared with permissible values for safe design. 4. Altair Help - for Pre-processing / meshing techniques.
5. ANSYS Mechanical Help - Contacts, Bolt Pre-loads and
Convergence issues.
Conclusions
6. FEMFAT - for Fatigue / life estimation.
• Using the proposed fracture split connecting rod,
◦◦ It is estimated that cost savings of up to 10%.
◦◦ Reduction in weight. Contact Information
◦◦ 25% - 30% better fatigue performance. Suresh Kumar K, Manger - CAE PDD
VE Commercial Vehicles Limited - INDIA
• This process allows the shank and cap to be matched correctly,
skkandreegula@vecv.in
simply by fitting the fractured ends together.
09893043617
• This fracture split connecting rod can lower the manufacturing
cost by eliminating the need for machining joint surfaces and Umashanker Gupta, Dy. General Manger - CAE PDD
provides a high precision process to ensure correct positioning, VE Commercial Vehicles Limited - INDIA
stiffness and compatibility with other crank-train moving parts usgupta@vecv.in
-a definite merit in engine performance. 09755581763
• An accurate FE simulation methodology is established to reduce
the product development time of the fracture split connecting rod.
Acknowledgments
• Almost 95% correlation achieved with Strain test data and CAE
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Mr. Rajinder
simulation tool.
Singh Sachdeva, Executive Vice-President, Technology
• Fatigue life obtained using CAE simulation tool (Ansys &
Development, VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd, for granting permission
FEMFAT) has been validated with the fatigue test results.
to publish this work. Special thanks to Mr. Vimal Mulchandani,
• For this, we have used simulation tools to reduce number of Vice-President, CAE and Mr. Saurabh Rajauria, General Manager,
physical tests and thereby achieving considerable reduction in Powertrain for their guidance and encouragement to develop present
design and development time and cost. work. Also, the contributions and support of all CAD, CAE engineers
• Establishment of new process or method for design, CAE, and respective testing engineers are highly appreciated.
prototyping, validation, and line improvements - which brings
productivity enhancement.
• To establish a standardized procedure for this correlation for the Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations
benefit to the organization. FEMFAT - Finite Element Method Fatigue
FOS - Factor of Safety
References VECV - VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd

1. Londhe, A., Yadav, V., and Sen, A., "Finite Element Analysis PRETS179 - Ansys Pre-Tension Element Type
of Connecting Rod and Correlation with Test," SAE Technical CAE - Computer Aided Engineering
Paper 2009-01-0816, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-0816. FEA - Finite Element Analysis
2. Park, H., Ko, Y., Jung, S., Song, B. et al., "Development of
Fracture Split Steel Connecting Rods," SAE Technical Paper
2003-01-1309, 2003, doi:10.4271/2003-01-1309.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process
requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-1735