Pagination EFA 3370

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322956423
A repertoire of failures in gudgeon pins for internal combustion

engines, and a critical assessment of the design formulae
Article in Engineering Failure Analysis · February 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.004
CITATION READS
1 920
5 authors, including:
Antonio Strozzi Andrea Baldini

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
106 PUBLICATIONS 829 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 393 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Enrico Bertocchi Sara Mantovani

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
38 PUBLICATIONS 307 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Crashworthiness, composite materials View project
contact problems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sara Mantovani on 15 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2018) xxx-xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Failure Analysis
F
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com
OO
A repertoire of failures in gudgeon pins for internal combustion engines, and a
critical assessment of the design formulae
PR
A. Strozzi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini⁎⁠ , E. Bertocchi, S. Mantovani
Department of Engineering "Enzo Ferrari", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The geometries commonly employed in gudgeon pins for internal combustion engines are exam-
D
Gudgeon pin ined. In particular, various methods for reducing the pin weight are considered. The selection
Pin ovalization of the appropriate clearance is addressed. The most typical failure modes are classified and in-
Failure terpreted in the light of stress analysis. The available approximate design formulae are assessed
Contact pressure
versus selected Finite Element forecasts. The fatigue cycles of stress and displacement related pa-
Finite elements
TE rameters are examined. The effect of the initial clearance on the contact pressure and on the pin
ovalization is explored for selected clearance values. A typical Y–shaped fatigue crack is inter-
preted with the aid of Mohr circle. An error in a classical design approach based upon the con-
tainment of the pin ovalization is hypothesized.
EC
List of symbols
di⁠ pin inner diameter

do⁠ pin outer diameter
k numerical coefficient
l pin length
RR
lc⁠ length of the pin central part

ll⁠ global length of the pin lateral parts
p pressure distribution
po⁠ maximum contact pressure
ri⁠ pin inner radius
rm ⁠ pin (ring) mean radius
CO
rn⁠ radius of the neutral axis according to the curved beam theory
ro⁠ pin outer radius
t pin radial thickness
u circumferential displacement
x reference coordinate
UN
⁎ Corresponding author.
Email address: matteo.giacopini@unimore.it (M. Giacopini)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.004
Received 28 September 2017; Received in revised form 14 December 2017; Accepted 4 February 2018
Available online xxx
1350-6307/ © 2017.
A. Strozzi et al. Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2018) xxx-xxx
y reference coordinate
z axial coordinate
F
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H points lying on the pin central cross section
C diametral clearance
Dp⁠ piston bore diameter
OO
E Young's modulus
Fb⁠ bump force
Fo⁠ normal force applied to the semi-pin
FN ⁠ circumferential force applied to the semi-pin
G shear modulus
I moment of inertia
Mb⁠ bending moment
Mo⁠ ovalizing moment
PR
P total load vertically compressing the pin, total load per unit length
Po⁠ horizontal force component
Pv⁠ vertical force component
T shear force
Z section modulus
αβ crack angles
δ pin ovalization
D
v Poisson's ratio
σa⁠ axial stress
σo⁠ ovalizing stress
TE
σN ⁠ normal stresses
σP⁠ Poisson's ratio effect stress
σ1⁠ , σ2⁠ principal stresses
τ shear stress
τm⁠ ax maximum shear stress
Ω pin cross section area
EC
1. Introduction
Gudgeon pins (or piston pins, or wrist pins) play a vital, literally pivotal, role in a reciprocating internal combustion engine, [1].
In fact, the gudgeon pin connects the piston to the con-rod; it allows the con-rod to rotate with respect to the piston and, therefore, it
RR
provides a bearing for the con-rod to pivot upon as the piston undergoes its reciprocating motion.
Piston pins are arguably one of the most highly stressed engine components, and, therefore, they deserve special attention by the
designer [2–5].
The forces applied to the pin include those due to the combustion pressure, as well as the inertial forces exerted by the mass of the
piston and, partially, of the pin itself, [6]. In this paper, the combustion load refers to a loading due to both the combustion and the
inertial forces, globally compressing the con-rod shank, whereas the induction load describes a loading pulling the con-rod shank.
Moving along the pin axis direction, the pin central part is in contact with the bore of the con-rod small end, whereas the pin
CO
lateral parts are supported by the piston bosses.

The outline of this paper is as follows. The currently employed pin geometries and clearances are examined, and the shapes aim-
ing at reducing the pin weight are classified. The pin commonest failure modes are then ranked, and the existing information on the
fatigue crack initiation point and evolution directions is discussed. The available analytical expressions of the pin stresses are assessed
versus selected finite element (FE) forecasts, and they are related to the pin failure modes. The fatigue cycles of displacement-related
and stress-related parameters are investigated. A typical pin Y-shaped crack, see Fig. 12 of [7], is interpreted in terms of Mohr circle.
Finally, an error in a classical design approach based upon the containment of the pin ovalization is hypothesized, and a correction is
UN
proposed.
The collapsed gudgeon pins illustrated in this paper form part of the collection of the Engineering Department Enzo Ferrari, Mod-
ena, Italy; the gudgeon pins mainly originate from a long-lasting collaboration of the Engineering Department with several vehicle
industries of the territory; the gudgeon pins also constitute a teaching support to the courses offered on the structural design of inter-
nal combustion engine components.
2
2. Pin geometry
The gudgeon pin basic geometry is essentially cylindrical and hollow. To limit the contact pressure, in nondemanding applications
F
the pin length is as long as possible, often in the region of 0.8 times the piston bore. Conversely, to limit weight, in high performance
engines the pin is considerably shorter, down to 0.4 times the piston bore.
In automotive applications, the pin outer diameter is often in the region of 20 mm. In addition, in a four stroke engine, the pin
OO
inner diameter is about 0.5 times its outer equivalent, e.g. [6].
The available indications on the admissible pressure between the pin and the piston bosses are as follows. According to [8] and
[9], the admissible pressure between the steel pin and the aluminum piston bosses is 35 MPa, whereas its analogue between the pin
and the steel con-rod small end is 45 MPa. To achieve the same mean pressure along the lateral and central pin supports, the axial
length of the pin lateral supports should be 1.3 times that of the central support. According to [10,11], the maximum permissible
value for the contact pressure is about 40 MPa. In [12], the admissible contact pressure is 40 MPa for small engines, and 20 MPa
for large engines. In [13], a diagram is presented that reports the development trend for the admissible contact pressure in con-rod
PR
bearings along the years 1990–2005; see also Chapter 3.5 of [5]. It appears that the technological developments currently allow the
employment of contact pressures up to 180 MPa in year 2005, approximately doubled with respect to those of, say, 20 years ago.
Nowadays the gudgeon pins are mainly fully floating, e.g. [5] p. 35. Their advantages are: i) they provide a dual pivot to the pin,
thus more uniformly distributing wear and reducing the incidence of seizure; ii) they avoid the insurgence of mainly axial internal
stresses connected to the differential thermal expansion of the steel pin and of the aluminum piston, especially during the engine
warm-up phase. In past years, pins fixed into the piston bosses (stationary pins) or into the con-rod small end (semi-floating pins)
were used, since they did not require the employment of circlips to avoid undesired sideways movements of the pin, [14] p. 274. In
addition, in not fully floating pins the effort of designing a lubricated contact can be restricted to the pivoting mating surfaces. It is
D
also observed that in fully floating pins the fatigue cycle of the ovalizing stresses is more detrimental than that in nonfreely rotating
pins, see Section 4.1.
Considerations on the press fit pressure distribution in stationary and semi-floating assemblies are reported in [15].
TE
2.1. Pin weight containment
To reduce weight, the engine pin is always hollow, where the inner to outer radii aspect ratio is often in the region of 0.5 in a four
stroke engine, e.g. [6]. With this geometry, the weight reduction with respect to a solid pin is 25%, whereas the increase in bending
stresses is a mere 6%. However, the presence of a bore causes the insurgence of a pin ovalization and, therefore, of undesired ovalizing
EC
stresses, which are absent in a solid pin. For this reason, it is not convenient to lighten the pin by increasing the bore radius beyond a
certain limit, since the pin weight reduction, within a substantial constancy of the pin bending stresses, would be counterbalanced by
a noticeable undesired increase of the ovalizing stresses, see [2], p.570 and [16].
In high performance engines, the gudgeon pin basic cylindrical hollow geometry is often modified to further reduce the pin mass
and, consequently, the inertial forces affecting the pin, in the respect of the condition that the pin strength be not significantly com-
promised. The commonest pin geometry modification is to introduce a taper along the extremities of the inner surface of the hollow
RR
pin, see [2, p. 570, 5,7,16–17,18, p. 98] and [19]. Fig. 1(a) shows a tapered pin. Since this tapered zone falls at the pin extremities,
the bending moment affecting such pin zones is small and, therefore, the introduction of tapers does not appreciably jeopardize the
pin strength. The taper is usually described by a conical surface; however, more complex taper shapes are sometimes employed, Fig.
1(b).
An alternative pin geometry modification aimed at reducing the pin mass, is to lower the radial thickness of the hollow pin, apart
from the pin transition zones in which the pin support passes from the piston bosses to the con-rod small end (referred to in the
following as “gap”), Fig. 1(c). This geometry has been proposed in Fig. 17 of [7], and in [20–22]. The boring of this shape is time
CO
consuming, since cantilever tools would be needed that, being flexible, demand low rates of metal removal. A cold extrusion process
for making internal bulges in pins is patented in [20].
UN
Fig. 1. (a) Conical taper; (b) rounded taper; (c) reinforcements at the gap.
3
The pin geometry of Fig. 1(c) is expected to improve the pin strength at the gaps by reducing the shear stresses, and, therefore, it
should be particularly effective when the pin shear stresses prevail over the bending and ovalizing stresses, see Section 4. The present
authors are aware of applications of this pin geometry in high performance motorcycle engines.
Additional pin inner profiles have been numerically investigated in [23].
F
2.2. Clearance
OO
An initial clearance must be provided between the pin outer surface on one side, and the small end bore and piston boss bores
on the other side. This clearance must fall within a certain interval. In fact, if the clearance at operating temperature is too small,
seizure might occur, whereas too high an initial play may cause deterioration in the lubricating regime [6] as well as pin related noise
[24,25]. Based upon an extensive literature review, in [6] the diametral clearance between eye and pin is suggested to fall within
the interval 0.0008–0.003 times the pin radius. For a commonplace 20 mm diameter pin, the acceptable diametrical clearance should
range from 0.008 to 0.03 mm. In [24] a tighter clearance range is suggested, from 0.002 to 0.012 mm; however, detailed indications
on the pin outer diameter interval to which such clearances are applicable have not been provided.
PR
In the following, modifications are considered at tolerance levels of the surfaces in contact with the pin, aimed at providing a
more favourable contact pressure distribution. (The shape modifications already considered in Section 2.1, aiming at reducing the pin
weight, addressed a macroscopic level.)
The outer edges of the pin are radiused or chamfered to limit the presence of pressure spikes at the pin extremities. Suggestions
on such geometry corrections are provided in [26], p. 7.
In high power engines, the bore surface of the small end is generally inverse barrelled, where the barrelling serves to accommodate
for the pin bending and, consequently, to limit the untoward pressure peaks at the contact extremities, [27]. For a 20 mm diameter
steel pin, the axially profiled con-rod bore consists of a central cylindrical surface blending with two lateral arcs of a circle, whose
D
radius is about 30 times the pin diameter. The axial length of the cylindrical portion is about one third of the con-rod small end
thickness in the pin axial direction; its aim is to avoid any undesired piston pivoting about the pin midpoint.
In high tech pistons, pin bosses are adopted whose pin bores exhibit a diameter (partially) varying along the bore axis, [5,24,28].
In particular, a boss splayed seat whose diameter increases towards the small end lateral faces, is frequently employed to achieve a
TE
pin-hub contact pressure that stays more uniform in the pin axial direction, [29]. The splayed portion of the boss bore is generally
limited to the zone closer to the small end lateral faces; its axial length is about one fourth of the pin diameter, and, for a 20 mm
diameter pin, the increase in the bore diameter is about 30 μm, with a fine tolerance range smaller than 10 μm. The splayed profile is
supplied to the CNC by reporting the coordinates of a series of subsequent points, whose axial step is in the region of 1 mm.
In race applications, a nonaxisymmetric splayed profile is sometimes adopted, to account for the differences in intensity of the
EC
forces during combustion and induction, and the consequent differences in the pin bending. In such high tech applications, a detailed
knowledge of the temperature distribution in working conditions is required.
It is noted that the advantages deriving from inverse barelling are more relevant than the boss splayed seat modification; in fact
the piston is made of a relatively deformable aluminum alloy, and it deflects accompanying the steel pin bending, and adapting its
deformation to the bent pin, see Section 6.
In [24], trumpet-shaped, profiled pin bores are examined from the viewpoint of noise occurrence.
RR
It is admirable that the potential usefulness of an inverse barrelled small end bore surface had lucidly been understood in year
1941 in [7], before formula 17, together with the advantages of a conical-ovoidal profile of the piston bosses.
The modelling of the effect of clearance, [27], or of interference fits, [30], requires advanced mathematical tools. It is therefore
a demanding task to develop models capable of accounting for the pin being floating or not. An attempt is made in the following to
perfunctorily review the main available information on the clearance effects within the con-rod assembly realm.
In the presence of an initial clearance, the contact between the pin and the small end bore is progressive, and, therefore, it is
nonlinear, see [4] p. 9 and [31]. The following analytical results allow this nonlinearity to be more easily modelled and investigated.
CO
It has been shown in [30] that the extent of the contact arc depends on the ratio between the load the and clearance; consequently,
the above ratio may be treated as a single variable. In addition, in two geometries for which the above ratio is the same, the stress
pattern remains the same, see [32,33] for details, and Fig. 11 of [34].
In this paper, a limited, preliminary investigation on the clearance effect is carried out with the FE analysis of the pin ovalization
in Section 6.
The material employed for the pin is a case-hardened, low carbon, alloyed steel, see [35–36] and Appendix A of [26]. Titanium
pins are also commercially available, although their life expectation is very limited, [1]. Anti-wear coatings are frequently employed,
UN
see Chapter 3 of [5] and [37].
4
3. Pin failure modes
The knowledge of the commonest pin failure loci and modes is particularly useful from the designer viewpoint. In fact, a detailed
F
stress analysis should focus on these loci, and design formulae should be developed for the most detrimental stresses.
Many studies concur in locating the pin failure initiation point, with respect to its radial position, along the pin bore; with respect
to its axial position, at the gap, i.e. at the axial transitional zone where the pin support passes from a pin lateral to its central zone;
OO
with respect to its angular position, along the pin neutral axis, i.e. at the bore sides. Fig. 2(a) denotes with letters six points lying on a
general pin cross section; the letters are useful for identifying the loci at which the pin stresses are evaluated. In Fig. 2(a) the lettering
employed in Fig. 1 of [38] is adopted as an homage. The crack initiation point falls at the point A of Fig. 2(a), [5,16,19,23,36,39,40].
This result agrees with the circumstance that the point A is generally the most stressed zone, see Section 4.
A contrasting opinion is expressed in [7], Fig. 8, where the crack initiation point is assumed to be located along the pin outer
surface. In [41] it is stated that, in the presence of case hardening along the pin outer surface but in its absence along the pin bore,
failure initiates at the bore, although not at the bore sides; in the presence of case hardening along the pin inner and outer surface,
PR
failure starts at the outside surface. This result may be rationalized by observing that bore hardening improves the fatigue strength of
the material, [16].
In [7] it is noted that the crack initiates with an inclination of about 45° with respect to the pin axis, and this fact is interpreted as
a result of high shear stresses at the pin bore sides. The presence of two 45° inclined cracks, forming the two branches of a Y-shaped
crack, see Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 12 of [7], will be thoroughly discussed in Section 5, where a more realistic angle of 60° is found to be
compatible with the stress field at the point A.
Fig. 14 of [7] reports experimental contour curves expressing the principal directions, which are about 45° inclined at the gap.
Starting from the typical crack initiation at the bore sides, point A, the crack evolves in the circumferential direction and/or in
D
the axial direction, propagating towards the pin outer surface, [36], and Fig. 2(b). The first crack evolution mode produces a fracture
along a surface perpendicular to the pin axis, and it is mainly imputable to the shear force; in [7] it is noted that this crack evolves
circumferentially according to a serrated pattern, see their Fig. 10, initially formed by the two branches of the Y-shaped crack. The
TE
second mode produces axial cracks, and it is mainly attributable to the ovalizing stresses; in [7], Fig. 15, it is noted that the crack
evolves axially according to a straight line. The two fracture modes often coexist in a cracked pin, see [7], [36].
The axial cracks usually evolve along the pin axial portions outside the con-rod small end, and they eventually reach the pin ex-
tremities.
Axially cracked pins, in which the cracks do not reach the pin extremities, are rarely encountered. In fact, it is noted in [7] that
the pin cracks evolve very rapidly.
EC
The angular distance among different axial cracks due to ovalization varies depending on whether the pin is fully floating or not. If
the pin is fully floating, it is free to rotate about its axis, [42], and, consequently, the angular distance among the longitudinal cracks
does not possess any privileged value. In addition, as a result of the pin rotation, the ovalizing stresses, see Section 4 below, should be
conservatively modelled as reversed. If the pin is not fully floating, it cannot freely rotate about its axis, and four longitudinal cracks
generally develop at an angular interval of 90°, consistent with the four angularly equidistant loci of maximum ovalizing moment en-
countered in an ovalized ring. Fig. 3(a) displays three axial cracks at a relative angular distance of 90°, the fourth crack being absent.
RR
When the pin cannot rotate, the ovalizing stresses are repeated and not reversed.
The usual absence of axial cracks in the pin central zone may be rationalized by noting that the pin ovalization in its central part is
confined by the restraint of the central lug, [38]. Consequently, the small end in some way protects the pin from excessive ovalization.
In [2], p.571, it is similarly noted that experience demonstrates that the pin collapse does not occur at the pin centre.
CO
UN
Fig. 2. (a) Location of six points lying on a general pin cross section, defined by letters, (b) the main crack propagations in a gudgeon pin.
5
F
OO
Fig. 3. (a) The Y-shaped crack, and three axial cracks; (b) gudgeon pin fractured along a plane perpendicular to its axis, passing through the gap.
PR
It has been noted that the crack evolves both in the circumferential and in the axial direction. Two fracture modes, in which only
one of the two above cracks evolves, are displayed in Fig. 3(a) and (b). Fig. 3(a) shows the axial cracks. Fig. 3(b) reports a gudgeon
pin fractured along a plane perpendicular to its axis, passing through the gap between the piston bosses and the con-rod small end, in
the manifest absence of axial cracks.
Three unusual failure modes are documented in the following. Fig. 4(a) shows a pin collapsed along the pin central cross section.
Fig. 4(b) details two unusually contiguous axial cracks evolving from the Y-shaped crack. Fig. 4(c) shows a pin axially cracked along
its whole length, in the absence of cracks developing along circumferential directions.
In [43] and [44], naval gudgeon pin failures are examined. These pins possess lubrication holes, which act as stress raisers. Crack
D
propagation therefore generally differs from the classical pin collapses examined in this paper.
4. Analytical expressions for the pin stresses and comparison with FE predictions
TE
In this section, the available analytical formulae for computing the pin stresses are reviewed and compared to selected FE predic-
tions; they are also related to the pin failures examined in Section 3.
Although the gudgeon pin is ranked in [3] as a simple machine element, it is a difficult task to theoretically model the pin
and to derive sufficiently accurate analytical expressions for the pin stresses. A similar opinion about the complexities encoun-
tered in analytically mimicking a gudgeon pin is shared in [4], p. 8, where it is stated that Sometimes the “engineering meth-
EC
ods” are completely useless [in] trying to make design calculation of the pin. The reliable determination of stresses can be achieved
here only by FEM analysis. However, although approximate, the analytical design formulae retain their usefulness in
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 4. (a) Pin collapsed along the pin central cross section, (b) two unusually contiguous axial cracks; (c) pin axially cracked along its whole length.
6
interpreting the pin failure modes of Section 3 and the fatigue cycles followed by the pin stresses, see Section 4.1, as well as in a
preliminary pin design.
Following the beam-like modelling scheme developed in [2], p. 570, the main stresses affecting the pin are the normal stresses,
the ovalizing stresses, the axial stresses, and the shear stresses. The axial stresses are associated to the pin bending along its axial
F
direction in both combustion and induction; the ovalizing stresses are connected to the ovalization of the pin cross section as a result
of its vertical compression. The shear stresses are due to the shear force acting vertically.
The normal stresses are less intuitive; they are discussed below. Following [2] p. 571, if the pin upper and lower parts are ideally
OO
cut by a horizontal (vertical) plane passing through the pin axis, they mutually exchange vertical (horizontal), i.e. circumferential,
stresses; such stresses may be interpreted as the sum of the normal and the ovalizing stresses; the normal stress σN ⁠ represents the mean
value of the vertical (horizontal) stresses; the remaining stresses are the ovalizing stresses. In conclusion, two kinds of normal stresses
are generally investigated, acting on a horizontal and on a vertical pin cross section, respectively, [9], p. 816 and 821.
Fig. 5(a) evidences the pin bending and ovalization in combustion; Fig. 5(b) details the physically inferable signs of the axial stress
σa⁠ , of the ovalizing stress σo⁠ , of the normal stress σN
⁠ , and of the shear stress τ, for two representative points. The position of the two
infinitesimal cubes of Fig. 5(b) is described by the points A (the pin bore side) and D (the pin periphery, top zone) of Fig. 2(a); the
PR
axial position of the first cube is at the gap; the axial position of the second cube is at the pin centre.
At the point A, the axial stress σa⁠ computed according to a purely flexural model is null, since this point falls on the neutral axis; at
the point D, σa⁠ is tensile as a result of the pin bending in combustion. The ovalizing stress σo⁠ is compressive at both the points A and
D as a result of the ovalization of the pin cross section in combustion. The shear stress τ is null at the point D. It is noted that the two
normal stresses σN ⁠ reported on the two infinitesimal cubes of Fig. 5(b) at the points A and D, act on different pin cross sections: σN ⁠ in
A acts on the pin axial section, radially defined by the segment A–F, whereas σN ⁠ in D acts on the pin section defined by the segment
B–D.
D
The corresponding analytical expressions for the stresses, extracted from the pertinent literature, are reported in the following,
and compared to selected FE forecasts.
The reference commonplace steel pin geometry employed in the FE analysis for comparison with the analytical forecasts is de-
tailed in the following: pin inner radius ri⁠ = 5 mm, outer radius ro⁠ = 10 mm, length l = 60 mm, global length of the two lateral pin
TE
supports ll⁠ = 34.14 mm, length of the central support lc⁠ = 25.86 mm, length of the lateral pin supports over length of the central sup-
port lc⁠ /ll⁠ = 1.32, bore Dp⁠ = 100 mm.
The shapes adopted for the aluminum pistons are typical of high performance engines, see Fig. 1 of [45]; details on the piston
geometry are inevitably omitted for brevity. The combustion and induction loadings are examined separately. During combustion,
the load compresses the con-rod shank, whereas during induction the load is tensile. The load applied is 24,000 N in mimicking both
combustion and induction.
EC
4.1. FE analysis
The numerical structural analysis has been carried out with the commercial FE software MSC.Marc2013®. Based upon the
experience gained by the present authors in the mechanical analysis of a conrod assembly, see [6,27,30], the contact among
the conrod assembly components has been modelled by employing the unilateral contact algorithm implemented in the solver,
RR
which is based on internal cinematic constraints, that are activated in incipient interpenetration, and are released
CO
UN
Fig. 5. (a) Pin bending and ovalization in combustion; (b) signs of the axial bending stress σa⁠ , of the ovalizing stress σo⁠ , of the normal stress σN⁠ , and of the shear stress
τ for the points A and D.
7
as the reactions become tensile. Linear elasticity has been adopted for the mating bodies, and plasticity has not been modelled.
Two con-rod assembly geometries have been examined in the FE study. With regard to the first geometry, the pin dimensions are
detailed at the end of Section 4, whereas the remaining assembly dimensions have been omitted for brevity. To limit the computa-
tional effort, perfect fit has been assumed between the pin periphery and the mating surfaces. The forecasts of the first geometry have
F
been employed to assess the analytical predictions of formulae (1) to (13). The second pin dimensions considered are reported at the
end of Section 6, and they describe an actual high performance con-rod assembly, for which detailed information on the clearance
interval and maximum loading was available to the authors. The second geometry has been employed to assess the effect of four
OO
clearances (the first of which represents a perfect fit), see Figs. 17 and 18, and Tables 10 and 11.
Fig. 6(a) reports a typical FE mesh of the second con-rod assembly geometry examined, and Fig. 6(b) details an enlargement of the
gudgeon pin. As a result of symmetry, only one quarter of the whole con-rod assembly was modelled, and the con-rod discretization
was limited to the con-rod small end and to the upper part of the shank, e.g. [45]. First-order elements of size 0.1 mm were adopted
for the gudgeon pin and for the bush and in the vicinity of all contacts; moving to the con-rod and to the piston, the element size was
increased up to 3.5 mm. A total number of 615,000 elements has been employed.
To determine the applicability field of the analytical design formulae reported in this paper, their forecasts should be compared
PR
to their FE counterparts for a wide spectrum of pin geometries. Unfortunately, this comparison would require a considerable compu-
tational work, and, therefore, such error analysis has not been carried out in detail. However, a hint on the validity of the analytical
formulae is provided by Fig. 6 of [6], which testifies to a good agreement between the analytical and the numerical circumferential
stress in the small end, for the whole practically relevant interval of the small end and pin geometries. It may therefore be argued that
the analytical formulae here presented for the pin stresses possess an ample validity field, whose exact determination is deferred to a
next paper.
4.2. Analytical stresses
D
For simplicity, in this section perfect fit is assumed between the pin and its housing; the initial clearance effect is explored with
regard to both the ovalization and to the stress level only in Section 6.
As a completion of the observations on the clearance consequences reported in Section 2.2, it may be observed that, with the per-
TE
fect fit idealization, the pin contact is receding both in combustion and in induction, [33]. Consequently, passing from a null load to
an infinitesimally small load, the angular extent of the pin contacting periphery arc contracts from 360° to about 180° both in com-
bustion and in induction, and this reduced contact arc does not increase as the applied load is augmented. The stresses are therefore
proportional to the applied load, the problem is linear, and the stress field may be normalized with respect to the applied load level.
In addition, the stress state referring to a perfect fit is similar to that affecting an analogous geometry but in the presence
EC
of an initial clearance, whose contact is classifiable as progressive, [4] p. 9. In more detail, as the applied load is increased,
the stress state computed in the presence of an initial clearance approaches to that referring to a perfect fit if the applied
load is sufficiently high to produce a contact angular extent close to that encountered in the perfect fit situation. In real prob
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 6. FE model: (a) discretized components; (b) detailed view of the pin.
8
lems, the clearance adopted and the load applied actually produce a contact angular extent close to the plateau value of 180°, and,
consequently, the perfect fit idealization is representative of the geometry in the presence of clearance. This observation justifies the
adoption of a perfect fit in this preliminary study, see also [30,33].
The two loading conditions in combustion (con-rod shank in compression) and in induction (con-rod shank in tension) have been
F
examined with FE, and they have been compared to the analytical formulae. It is recalled that the same imposed load intensity is used
to model both combustion and induction. It has already been observed that this perfect fit contact problem is linear, and, therefore,
the stresses may be normalized with respect to the applied load.
OO
The following sections separately compare the analytical stresses to their numerical predictions. Following [2], the stresses con-
sidered are the normal stress, the ovalizing stress, the axial stress, and the shear stress.
4.2.1. Normal stress σN⁠

The FE analysis supplies the sum of the normal stresses σN ⁠ and of the ovalizing stresses σo⁠ , since such stresses act on the same
face of the infinitesimal cube, see Fig. 5(b). For this reason, the evaluation of σN⁠ and σo
⁠ is addressed first. The computation of the
analytical normal stress σN
⁠ and its comparison with the FE predictions are examined below with reference to the three segments A–F,
PR
B–D, C–E of Fig. 2(a). The segment A–F is examined first.
Following [2], p. 571, the analytical mean normal stress σN ⁠ along the segment A–F and along the whole pin length is expressed by
the formula:
(1)
where P is the total load vertically compressing the pin, t is the pin radial thickness, and l is the pin length. The numerical value
D
reported in formula (1) is computed for the reference pin geometry and load.
The above analytical formula (1), resting on a plane modelling, provides the mean value of the normal stress and not its maximum,
which would be more useful for strength calculations. The fatigue cycle of the normal stress is repeated.
With the aid of FE, it is possible to assess how much the normal stress deviates from constancy in the pin axial direction in a
TE
three-dimensional study. In fact, the mean value in the radial direction of the circumferential stress may be evaluated along horizontal
radial segments comprised between the pin inner and the outer radii, i.e. the segment A–F of Fig. 2(a), for various axial positions. The
FE forecasts allow the maximum and minimum values of the normal stress to be computed.
Fig. 7 displays along the y-axis the mean normal stress σN⁠ between the points A and F of Fig. 2(a), see also the inset, for various
axial positions, for both the combustion and induction loads. The z-axis of Fig. 7 spans the axial position of the pin, starting from the
pin centre, see the inset. Two curves referring to combustion and induction are reported together with the constant analytical value
EC
of Eq. (1) for the reference pin geometry and loads.

Table 1 compares the analytical mean normal stress along the pin section defined by the segment A–F, see Fig. 2(a), and by the
pin axial length, to the FE maximum and minimum normal stresses, extracted from Fig. 7.
The mean analytical value of the normal stress along the horizontal segment A–F, provided by Eq. (1), is very similar to
the mean value obtained with FE, but it is poorly representative of the FE maximum forecasts, that are more useful from the
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 7. Analytical and numerical normal stress along the segment A-F for various axial positions of the segment.
9
Table 1
Comparison between a) analytical mean normal stress along the pin section defined by the segment A–F, and by the pin axial length, and b) FE maximum and minimum
normal stresses.
σN⁠ [MPa], segment A–F Combustion Induction
F
Analytical −40.00 −40.00
FE, max −28.94 −32.28
OO
FE, min −52.41 −53.49
pin design viewpoint. However, the highest intensity of σN ⁠ is appreciably smaller than, say, the maximum ovalizing stress, see Section
4.2.2, and, therefore, the above inaccuracy may be tolerated.
Fig. 8 aims at investigating the origin of the concentrated normal stress peak along the segment A–F, visible in Fig. 7 in the point A
at the gap. Three loading models referring to combustion are compared; they are illustrated in the inset of Fig. 8, labelled as (a), (b),
and (c), and identified by the line style. The modelling (a) of the inset is that of Fig. 7, where the contact pressure is realistic, since it
PR
is derived from a FE analysis accounting for the contact between the piston and the mating surfaces. The realistic pressure distribution
is that of Fig. 12(a), and it exhibits pressure peaks typical of the elastic contact problems in the presence of edges. The loading (b) of
the inset is that of Fig. 12(c), and it is a piecewise-constant pressure profile idealization in the pin axial direction. Finally, in the load-
ing (c) of the inset, the maximum singularity degree of the contact pressure is adopted. In fact, the contact pressure is formed by two
ideally concentrated force collars applied to the pin at the gaps, following a cos-squared profile in the pin circumferential direction.
The three forecasts in terms of normal stress along the segment A–F, moving along the pin axis, are compared in Fig. 8; the corre-
sponding curves show that the intensity of the normal stress peak at the gap of Fig. 7 considerably varies with the singularity degree
of the contact pressure. The piecewise contact pressure does not produce any perceivable normal stress peak at the gaps, and it essen-
D
tially coincides with normal stress mean value of −40 MPa, see formula (1). The force collar generates a normal stress peak consid-
erably higher than that of the realistic pressure profile. This preliminary study may be useful in developing an analytical modelling
suitable for accurately predicting the normal stress peaks in the point A at the gap.
TE
To provide additional information on the pin stress field, useful in assessing the pin strength at the points B, C, D, E of Fig. 2(a),
the normal stresses have also been computed along the vertical segments B–D and C–E, for various axial positions of these segments,
both in combustion and in induction.
The analytical evaluation of the mean normal stress along the vertical segments B–D and C–E and along the whole pin
length may be carried out according to a plane model similar to that already employed to estimate the normal stress along
EC
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 8. Three loading models with different contact pressure singularity, and the corresponding normal stress along A–F.
10
the horizontal segment A–F, see [9], p. 816. While the FE predictions for the normal stresses are evaluated both in combustion and
induction, for simplicity the analytical formulae are developed only in combustion, since the contact pressure profile adopted in in-
duction cannot be described by a unique expression and, therefore, it is less suitable for an analytical treatment, see the comments
referring to Table 9, and Section 4.3 for details.
F
Following [2], p. 518, during combustion a cos-squared pressure distribution is assumed along the whole pin periphery and length,
see Fig. 12(b) below. With this pressure profile, the force horizontally compressing the pin is half that vertically compressing it, i.e.
P/2. Consequently, the mean analytical normal stress σN ⁠ along the segments B–D and C–E and along the whole pin length, computed
OO
according to a plane modelling, is:
(2)
where P is the total load vertically compressing the pin, t is the pin radial thickness, and l is the pin length. The numerical value of
formula (2) is computed for the reference pin geometry and load.
PR
Figs. 9 and 10 report the FE mean value in the radial direction of the circumferential stress, i.e. the normal stress σN ⁠ , evaluated
along the vertical segments B–D and C–E of Fig. 2(a), respectively, for various axial positions of these segments, and for the reference
pin geometry and load, both in combustion and in induction. The analytical prediction according to formula (2) is also included.
Two aspects clearly emerge from the FE predictions of Figs. 9 and 10: a) the normal stress in combustion changes abruptly its sign
in the vicinity of the gap (in induction, the stress curve remains essentially compressive); b) the mean analytical prediction provided
by Eq. (2) for the normal stress along the segments B–D and C–E is not representative of the FE minimum and maximum forecasts.
It may be concluded that the analytical plane modelling leading to formula (2) is unrealistic, since it provides normal stress values
that remain constant in the pin axial direction; it is also unsafe, since it supplies too low values for the normal stress. A more accurate
D
design formula, discussed in the following, is therefore desirable.
To develop a more realistic analytical model, it is necessary to abandon the previously employed plane model in the pin axis di-
rection, in favour of idealizations that can mimic the different mechanical response of the pin central portion, coupled with the small
end, and of the pin lateral portions, coupled with the piston bosses. Spurred by a model suggested in [38], after Fig. 9, where the upper
TE
and lower portions of the pin [are interpreted] as separate beams, in this paper a semi-pin is considered that is obtained by segmenting a
complete pin along a vertical plane passing through the pin axis. Then, the semi-pin is ideally split into three parts, namely the central
zone and the two lateral portions. Simple rotational equilibrium equations for the three parts permit a more accurate prediction to be
obtained for the normal stress distribution in the pin axial direction.
Fig. 11(a) shows the semi-pin in combustion, axially loaded for simplicity by a piecewise constant pressure profile, see Fig.
EC
12(c) below, and circumferentially loaded by a cos-squared distributed pressure profile. The relative intensity of the central
and lateral pressure profiles fulfils the pin global vertical equilibrium; the horizontal equilibrium is respected by imposing a
suitable uniform pressure to the semi-pin faces defined by the vertical plane cutting the pin, which lie on the vertical seg-
ments B–D and C–E of Fig. 2(a). Such faces are assumed as unconstrained and, therefore, they are free to warp as a result of
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 9. The FE normal stress evaluated along the vertical segment B–D for various axial positions of the segment.
11
F
OO
PR
Fig. 10. The FE normal stress evaluated along the vertical segment C–E for various axial positions of the segment.
D
TE
EC
RR
CO
Fig. 11. (a) Semi-pin, axially loaded by a piecewise constant pressure profile, and radially loaded by a cos-squared pressure profile; (b) the directions of the circumfer-
ential displacement u due to warping for a selection of zones on the pin vertical faces; (c) FE deformation; (d) rotational equilibrium about the shear centre in the pin
central zone; (e) rotational equilibrium about the shear centre in the pin lateral zones.
the semi-pin vertical compression exerted by the central and lateral pressure distributions. Fig. 11(b) indicates the displacements u,
perpendicular to the vertical faces (i.e. circumferentially oriented), due to warping, in six representative zones of the semi-pin vertical
UN
faces. The semi-pin faces warp circumferentially according to opposite trends depending on whether the faces belong to the central
or lateral semi-pin portions. The FE deformation of the semi-pin of Fig. 11(c) confirms the above opposite trends of warping.
Since the semi-pin vertical faces fall on the vertical symmetry plane of the whole pin, warping is precluded along this
plane in the complete pin. To contrast the unphysical warping of Fig. 11(c), it is necessary to apply normal (i.e. circumferen-
tial) forces FN
⁠ to the semi-pin, whose directions are opposite to those of the circumferential displacements u reported in Fig.
11(b); the directions of FN⁠ are detailed in Fig. 11(d) and (e) for the semi-pin central and lateral cross sections, respectively. If
the semi-pin central and lateral portions are assumed as fully disjoined, the normal forces FN ⁠ for the central and lateral parts
12
F
OO
PR
D
Fig. 12. (a) realistic contact pressure distribution p; (b) pressure plane idealization for the evaluation of σo⁠ ; (c) pressure piecewise-constant idealization for the evalua-
tion of σa⁠ .
TE
may be evaluated by imposing rotational equilibrium equations about their shear centre, [46] p. 324, shown in Fig. 11(d) and (e).
In detail, the shear centre has been computed for the semi-pin cross section in the classical simplifying assumption of small pin
radial thickness; its distance from the semi-pin centre is 4 rm ⁠ /π, where rm ⁠ is the pin mean radius, Fig. 11(d) and (e). The vertical
resultant Pv⁠ of the cos-squared contact pressure applied to the semi-pin is P/2, and it passes through the centre of the semi-pin cross
section. The couple expressed as the product of P/2 by its distance from the shear centre, is counterbalanced by the couple formed
EC
by two horizontal normal forces FN ⁠ of opposite signs, applied to the two semi-pin radial faces. Such forces may be evaluated with a
simple rotational equilibrium equation, to provide FN ⁠ = P/π. The corresponding normal stress is therefore (P/π)/(t × l), where l is the
axial length of the pin portion, be it the central, lc⁠ , or lateral, ll⁠ , portion, and not the whole pin length, see formulae (3) to (6).
The vertical equilibrium of each semi-pin central or lateral portion is guaranteed by a variation of the shear stress in the semi-pin
axial direction. The semi-pin horizontal equilibrium is fulfilled by adding, to the two above horizontal forces FN ⁠ of opposite sign, two
equiverse forces Fo⁠ = Po⁠ /2 counterbalancing the horizontal component Po⁠ = Pv⁠ /2 of the cos-squared pressure p. Since Pv⁠ = P/2, then
RR
Po⁠ = P/4 and Fo⁠ = P/8.

The two semi-pin vertical faces, lying on the segments B–D and C–E of Fig. 2(a), are assumed to be subjected to two ovalizing
couples of equal intensity and of opposite sign, which, therefore, do not affect the rotational equilibrium of the semi-pin.
The above analytical modelling has been separately applied to the pin central part, Fig. 11(d), and to the two pin lateral portions,
Fig. 11(e). The signs of the normal forces FN ⁠ in the lateral and central portions are opposite, in agreement with the FE warping pre-
dictions of Fig. 11(c). In other words, this approximate analytical modelling accounts for the pin not behaving as a plane problem
CO
along the pin whole axial length; instead, this modelling adopts a plane idealization for the two central and lateral pin portions, which
are assumed as fully disjoined.
The mean analytical normal stress σN ⁠ along the segment B–D and at the pin central portion during combustion is:
(3)
UN
where lc⁠ is the length of the pin central part.

The mean analytical normal stress σN ⁠ along the segment B–D and at the pin lateral portions during combustion is:
(4)
where ll⁠ is the global length of the pin lateral parts.
13
The mean analytical normal stress σN

⁠ along the segment C–E and at the pin central portion during compression is:
(5)
F
The mean analytical normal stress σN
⁠ along the segment C–E and at the pin lateral portions during combustion is:
OO
(6)
Tables 2 and 3 compare the mean analytical normal stress σN ⁠ in the circumferential direction along the rectangular area defined
by the segments B–D and C–E and by the pin axial length, to the FE maximum and minimum normal stresses, extracted from Figs. 9
and 10, for the reference pin geometry and load. The analytical values of σN ⁠ in combustion are computed by combining the two above
effects of the horizontal forces FN
⁠ and Fo ⁠ .
PR
The analytical values of expressions (3) to (6) are reported in Figs. 9 and 10. The simplified analytical model here proposed pro-
duces reasonable forecasts for the normal stresses in combustion along the segment C–E. Instead, the agreement along the segment
B–D is considerably poorer. The fatigue cycle of the normal stress along the segments B–D and C–E is complex, and it should be con-
servatively modelled as reversed for fully floating pins.
In conclusion, while the normal force along the segment A–F varies reasonably moderately in the pin axial direction, Fig. 7, the
normal force along the segments B–D and C–E varies considerably along the pin axis, Figs. 9 and 10.
It might also be expected that the normal stresses reach their highest absolute values along the segment A–F. In fact, this segment
D
is perpendicular to the vertical force compressing the pin in combustion and in induction, and, therefore, the normal stresses act-
ing along this segment equilibrate the vertical force. Surprisingly, the above FE predictions show that the maximum normal stresses
fall along the segments B–D and C–E. By adopting the terminology typical of the Strength of Materials, in this case the “secondary
stresses” are found to be higher than the “primary stresses”, see [47], p. 99.
TE
It is finally noted that formulae (3) to (6), being based upon a cos-squared pressure profile, provide a forecast for the normal stress
along the segments B–D and C–E only during combustion, see the comments before formula 2. Consequently, the analytical predic-
tions during induction have not been included in Tables 2 and 3.
4.2.2. Ovalizing stress σo⁠

EC
The analytical evaluation of the ovalizing stress σo⁠ is considered in the following. The stresses σo⁠ are connected to the ovalization
of the pin cross section as a result of the pin vertical compression.
Since the three-dimensional problem seems to be too hard for simplified analysis, [4], p. 9, the analytical maximum ovalizing
stress σo⁠ is generally estimated by adopting for simplicity a plane modelling of the pin in its axial direction, in terms of a
beam-like ring. Fig. 12(a) reports a realistic three dimensional contact pressure distribution in combustion, characterized by the
presence of pressure peaks where the pin outer surface comes into contact with sharp edges affecting the profiles contacting
the pin, i.e. at the gap edges, see also Fig. 13 of [7]; Fig. 12(b) shows that, when a plane idealization is adopted for the com-
RR
putation of σo⁠ , the pressure profile is assumed to stay constant in the pin axis direction; Fig. 12(b) also details the axis of
Table 2
Comparison between a) analytical mean normal stress along the pin section defined by the segment B–D, and by the pin axial length, and b) FE maximum and minimum
normal stresses.
σN⁠ [MPa], segment B–D Combustion Induction

CO
Analytical, max 59.08–23.20 = 35.88

FE, max 19.96 31.50
Analytical, min −44.75 -17.57 = −62.33
FE, min −111.61 −101.42
Table 3
UN
Comparison between a) analytical mean normal stress along the pin section defined by the segment C–E, and by the pin axial length, and b) FE maximum and minimum
normal stresses.
σN⁠ [MPa], segment C–E Combustion Induction
Analytical, max 44.75–17.57 = 27.18

FE, max 24.31 2.07
Analytical, min −59.08 -23.20 = −82.28
FE, min −91.77 −120.59
14
the beam-like ring mimicking the pin, as well as the moment of inertia I and the section modulus Z for a pin section passing through
its axis.
By assuming a cos-squared pressure distribution along the whole pin periphery during combustion, see [2], p. 518 and a Castigliano
model expressed in terms of curved beam, see [48], p. 37, incorporating bending, normal force, and shear force effects, the analytical
F
expressions of the ovalizing moment Mo⁠ ,⁠ AF at the pin cross section A–F of Fig. 2(a), and the ovalizing stresses σo⁠ ,A and σo⁠ ,F during
combustion are:
OO
(7)
Similarly, the ovalizing moment Mo⁠ ,BD at the section B–D, and the ovalizing stresses σo⁠ ,B = −σo⁠ ,C and σo⁠ ,D = −σo⁠ ,E during combus-
PR
tion are:
(8)
D
where P is the load per pin unit length, rn⁠ is the radius of the neutral axis according to the curved beam theory, and rm ⁠ is the pin
mean radius. In this simplified analytical model, the intensity of Mo⁠ ,CE, σo⁠ ,C, and σo⁠ ,E is equal to Mo⁠ ,BD, σo⁠ ,B, and σo⁠ ,D, respectively. The
TE
numerical values reported in formulae (7) and (8) address the above reported gudgeon pin reference dimensions and load.
In Appendix A various stress and deflection analytical formulae are reported for a ring loaded by a cos-squared pressure profile
applied along its mean radius during combustion, for various models, i.e. according to the straight beam theory, to a curved, purely
flexural beam, and to a curved beam including the bending, normal force, and shear effects.
In the derivation of the ovalizing stress from the ovalizing moment, it is advisable to adopt the curved beam theory, as done in
formulae (7,8). In fact, in a typical gudgeon pin geometry the outer radius is about twice the inner radius, see Section 2. For this
EC
geometry, the ovalizing stress at the inner border is about 30% higher than that computed according to the rectilinear beam model-
ling.
The maximum ovalizing stresses at top dead centre during induction are considerably lower than those during combustion, and,
consequently, they may be neglected in the strength calculations, see Section 4.3. Therefore, the fatigue cycle of the ovalizing stresses
is essentially repeated for stationary or for semi-floating pins, whereas the fatigue cycle should be conservatively modelled as reversed
for fully floating pins.
RR
The maximum ovalizing stress falls during combustion, at the pin inner radius at the bore sides, point A of Fig. 2(a), and at the
transition section between the central and lateral pin supports. This agrees with the fatigue crack initiating in the vicinity of the point
A, see Section 3. The presence of high ovalizing stresses along the whole pin length justifies the axial propagation of the fatigue cracks
in the pins, Fig. 2(b).
Other loci of potentially high stresses fall where contact pressure peaks occur as a result of the presence of sharp edges affecting
the profiles contacting the pin, i.e. at the gap between the piston bosses and the con-rod small end, see Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 13 of [7].
However, since generally the ends of the containing bores are well radiused, [38], the corresponding stresses will rarely prevail over
CO
those at the pin bore sides.

The maximum ovalizing stress during combustion has been predicted with FE at the points A, B, C, Fig. 2(a), by computing the
circumferential stress along the radial segments A–F, B–D, and C–E, respectively, and by removing the stress part imputable to the
normal force, evaluated as the mean value along the corresponding radial segment.
In Table 4 the analytical predictions for σo⁠ according to formulae (7,8) are compared to the FE forecasts.
Table 4 confirms that the FE ovalizing stresses in combustion are considerably more relevant than their counterparts in induction.
The analytical ovalizing stresses during induction have not been included in Table 4, since the contact pressure profile adopted in
UN
induction is less suitable for an analytical treatment, see the comments referring to Table 9, and Section 4.3.
The agreement between analytical and FE predictions in combustion is fair for this pin geometry. However, it is known that for
different pin shapes the agreement between plane analytical forecasts and FE predictions may become considerably poorer. In fact,
formulae (7,8), deriving from a plane modelling, provide an averaged value in the pin axial direction of the three dimensional ovaliz-
ing stresses, and, therefore, they may significantly underrate their maximum value.
15
Table 4
Comparison between analytical and FE ovalizing stresses at the gap.
σo⁠ [MPa], points A, B, C, F, D, E, at the gap Combustion Induction
F
Analytical, point A −127.41
FE, point A −121.64 −30.05
Analytical, point B 101.21
OO
FE, point B 69.82 −7.29
Analytical, point C 101.21
FE, point C 100.90 −12.97
Analytical, point F 80.43
FE, point F 76.94 32.67
Analytical, point D −63.89
FE, point D −49.93 28.39
Analytical, point E −63.89
FE, point E −109.80 16.16
PR
For instance, in the photoelastic study of [38], for two specific con-rod assemblies defined by l/ro⁠ = 4.72 (the geometry here in-
vestigated is characterized by l/ro⁠ = 6) and for a particular loading device imposing that the resultant of the force exerted by each
piston boss passed through the gap between the central and outer supports, it was found that “the peak values [of the ovalizing stress]
are between 1.4 and 1.7 times the mean values along the length of the whole pin.”, see also Fig. 8 of [38]. An improved modelling for the
computation of the maximum ovalizing stress that remains valid for a wide interval of pin geometries, should account for three-di-
mensional effects and, in particular, it should incorporate the influence of the l/ro⁠ ratio. This development is beyond the scope of this
D
paper.
4.2.3. Axial stress σa⁠

The analytical evaluation of the pin axial stress σa⁠ is considered hereinafter. As it will emerge from the following analysis, the axial
TE
stress is mainly ascribable to the pin bending in its axial direction, but the purely flexural axial stress may be corrected by adding a
term due to the Poisson's ratio effect. The axial stress exclusively imputable to the pin bending is examined first.
The pin bending moment may be derived from the pressure distribution in the pin axial direction, see Fig. 13 of [7] and Fig.
12(a). To estimate the analytical maximum axial stresses occurring at the pin central section, the pin is generally modelled in terms
of a beam whose axis coincides with the pin axis, Fig. 12(c). (In the calculation of the ovalizing stresses, a different beam axis was
considered, see Fig. 12(b)). To get a compact expression for the maximum bending moment and for the axial stress, a simplified con-
EC
tact pressure with respect to its actual axial profile, Fig. 12(a), is generally adopted. A common simplification is to assume a contact
pressure that remains piecewise constant in the pin axis direction, see Fig. 12(c), which also details the axis of the beam-like ring
mimicking the pin, as well as the moment of inertia I and the section modulus Z for a pin section perpendicular to its axis. With this
simplification, the expression of the maximum bending moment Mb⁠ is Pl/8.
Since in the simplified model of Fig. 12(c) the contact pressure is piecewise constant in the pin axial direction, the resultant of
each uniform lateral pressure distribution is farther from the pin centre than the resultant of a realistic, nonuniform lateral pressure
RR
distribution, Fig. 12(a). Consequently, this simplified model of the central bending moment inevitably overpredicts the correct maxi-
mum bending value. To quantify this error, a benchmark is developed in which the pressure distribution in the pin axial direction is
realistically expressed in terms of (parts of) the analytical curve describing the contact pressure between a rectangular rigid indenter
and a deformable half plane, e.g. [49], p. 462. (A marginal shortcome of this otherwise realistic approximation is the fact that the
contact pressure between a rigid edge and a deformable half plane becomes infinite as 1/x0⁠ .5, whereas the correct singularity strength
for the contact under scrutiny between a deformable edge and a deformable half plane is 1/x0⁠ .226, e.g [50].) Additional details are
omitted for brevity. By adopting the above benchmark, the piecewise constant pressure modelling of Fig. 12(c) overrates the correct
CO
maximum bending moment, falling at the pin central section, by about 27%, [47], p. 285.
The corresponding analytical expression of the axial stress σa⁠ at the pin central cross section and at the points D or E, at the points
B or C, and at the points A and F of Fig. 2(a) is, e.g. [2]., p. 571:
UN
(9)
where Mb⁠ is the bending moment, and Z and I are the section modulus and the moment of inertia for a pin section perpendicu
16
lar to its axis, Fig. 12(c). In addition, l is the pin axial length, and di⁠ and do⁠ are the pin inner and outer diameters, respectively. Finally,
P is the applied load.
Since the analytical expressions (9) depend only on the axial distribution of the contact pressure but not on its circumferential dis-
tribution, these expressions are valid for both combustion and induction. The numerical values of σa⁠ included in formulae (9) address
F
the above reported gudgeon pin reference dimensions and load.
As a consequence of the loading due to both combustion pressure and inertial forces, the axial stresses are reversed.
Table 5 compares the analytical maximum axial stress σa⁠ due to the pin bending with the FE predictions in the pin central cross
OO
section at the points D, E, B, C, A, F of Fig. 2(a) both in combustion and in induction.
The agreement between analytical and numerical forecasts is fair. However, photoelastic [38] and FE studies concur in showing
that the beam theory is unable to thoroughly predict the distribution of the bending stresses within the whole gudgeon pin. In [38] it
reads: The pin does not behave like a simple beam. In addition: Simple bending theory cannot explain the bending behaviour … In fact, the
photoelastically read axial stresses in a plane perpendicular to the pin axis do not follow a linear distribution vanishing along the pin
neutral axis, see e.g. the variation of the axial stress along the points B, C, and D of Fig. 9 of [38].
An interesting explanation of the pin partial departure from the beam theory, as well as a proposal of correction of the ax-
PR
ial stress computed with the purely flexural theory of formula (9), is provided in [3], p. 20. It is there observed that the oval-
izing stresses produce additional stresses in the pin axis direction as a result of the Poisson's ratio effect. Fig. 13 details this
aspect. Fig. 13(a) shows the pin loaded by a plane (i.e. axially uniform) pressure profile; in Section 4.2.2 it has been shown
that this model provides an estimate of the pin ovalization and of the corresponding ovalizing stresses; Fig. 13(b) illustrates
the pin ovalization; Fig. 13(c) indicates the signs of the ovalizing stresses, physically deduced from the pin ovalization. For in-
stance, at the point A of Fig. 13(c) the ovalizing stress is compressive, whereas at the point F it is tensile. As a result of the
Poisson's ratio effect exerted by the ovalizing stress, the pin axial fibre passing through the point A (F) increases (decreases)
its length. (Instead, the axial fibres passing through the points G and H of Fig. 13(d) do not vary their length as a result of
D
the pin ovalization, since the corresponding ovalizing stresses are null.) Consequently, the pin ovalization causes warping of the
Table 5
Comparison between analytical and FE axial stresses at the pin centre.
TE
σa⁠ [MPa], points D, E, B, C,A, F, at the pin central section Combustion Induction
Analytical, point D, E ±244.46 ±244.46

FE, point D 228.50 −210.38
FE, point E −238.36 260.60
Analytical, point B, C
EC
±122.23 ±122.23
FE, point B 100.72 −119.18
FE, point C −70.74 74.51
Analytical, point A, F 0 0
FE, point A −36.60 8.36
FE, point F 17.08 −24.60
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 13. (a) pin loaded by a plane pressure profile; (b) pin ovalization; (c) signs of the ovalizing stress σo⁠ derived from the pin ovalization; (d) cross section warping.
17
pin end faces, illustrated in Fig. 13(d). However, if the pin is sufficiently long, plane strain prevails, and warping is hindered in the
zones sufficiently far from the pin extremities. Consequently, axial stresses take place in the pin central cross section as a result of the
Poisson's ratio effect, see also [9, p. 152, 51,52]. The intensity of such axial stresses σP⁠ (the index P stays for Poisson) is v×σo⁠ , where v
is the Poisson's ratio, equal to 0.3 for steel.
F
Being superposed to the axial stresses exclusively due to bending, such Poisson's ratio stresses may partially justify and correct the
inadequacy of the classical beam theory in modelling the pin axial stresses. For instance, the axial stresses formed by the combination
of bending stresses and of Poisson's ratio stresses no longer vanish along the pin neutral axis, in qualitative agreement with the pho-
OO
toelastic readings of Fig. 9 of [38].
Table 6 reports the analytical axial stress σa⁠ at the points D and E during combustion and induction, at the pin central cross section.
Table 6 modifies Table 5, by considering both the bending and the Poisson stresses in the evaluation of the analytical axial stress σa⁠ .
A comparison with the FE predictions is carried out.
Although the agreement between analytical and FE axial stresses has not been improved in all points of Fig. 2(a) by the introduc-
tion of the Poisson's correction, the asymmetry between the two analytical stress values at the points D and E qualitatively follows the
FE predictions. In addition, it has already mentioned that, while a purely flexural model provides null stresses along the pin neutral
PR
axis, the photoelastic measurements of [38], not following a linear distribution, indicate that the axial stress is not null along the
neutral axis. The introduction of the Poisson's correction allows the axial stresses along the neutral axis, e.g., at the points A and F, to
be reasonably correctly estimated, see Table 6.
The fatigue cycle of the axial stresses may be assumed as reversed.
Table 7 compares the analytical and FE forecasts at the two points A and F lying on the neutral axis, at the gap (and no longer at
the pin centre). The purely flexural stresses are null, since the points A and F stay on the neutral axis. The axial stress at the points
A and F is totally due to the Poisson's effect, and it is computed from the ovalizing stress which, according to the analytical plane
modelling of Fig. 12(b), remains constant moving axially along the pin.
D
The fair agreement of Tables 6 and 7 between analytical and numerical axial stresses along the pin neutral axis supports the valid-
ity of the correction imparted to the purely flexural stresses, based upon the Poisson's effect.
The analytical axial stresses during induction have not been included in Table 7, since difficulties are encountered in accurately
defining the contact pressure profile during induction, see the comments referring to Table 9, and Section 4.3.
TE
It is finally noted that in [2], p. 571, the axial stresses are named global stresses, thus seemingly suggesting that their value should
not be computed by merely considering the bending stresses, but that they should be estimated by accounting for concurrent causes.
4.2.4. Shear stress τ

The evaluation of the analytical pin shear stresses τ is considered hereinafter. The maximum shear force occurs at the pin support
EC
transition sections, i.e. at the gap, see [38] and Fig. 18(b) of [53], p.194.
Table 6
Comparison between analytical (corrected by accounting for the Poisson's ratio effect) and FE axial stresses at the pin centre.
σa⁠ [MPa], points D, E, B, C,A, F, at the pin central section Combustion Induction
Analytical, point D
RR
244.46–0.3×63.89 = 225.29
FE, point D 228.50 −210.38
Analytical, point E −244.46 -0.3×63.89 = −263.63
FE, point E −238.36 260.60
Analytical, point B 122.23 + 0.3×101.21 = 152.59
FE, point B 100.72 −119.18
Analytical, point C −122.23 + 0.3×101.21 = −91.87
FE, point C −70.74 74.51
CO
Analytical, point A 0.3×-127.41 = −38.22

FE, point A −36.60 8.36
Analytical, point F 0.3×80.43 = 24.13
FE, point F 17.08 −24.60
Table 7
Comparison between analytical (corrected by accounting for the Poisson's ratio) and FE axial stresses at the gap.
UN
σa⁠ , points A and F at the gap, [MPa] Combustion Induction
Analytical, point A −0.3×127.41 = −38.22

FE, point A −31.81 1.34
Analytical, point F 0.3×80.43 = 24.13
FE, point F 24.09 −15.64
18
The maximum shear stress τm

⁠ ax in an annular cross section of a beam is normally estimated with the Jourawski theory, e.g. Eq.
(30) of [16,54], p. 241:
F
(10)
OO
where T = P/2 is the shear force, Ω is the pin cross section area, and ri⁠ and ro⁠ are the inner and outer pin radii, respectively. The
numerical value of τm ⁠ ax reported in formula (10) addresses the above reported gudgeon pin reference dimensions and load.
However, the Jourawski formula applied to an annular section exhibiting the typical proportion of a gudgeon pin, is both inaccu-
rate and unconservative. In a pin typically defined by ri⁠ /ro⁠ ≈0.5, the unconservative error incurred by the Jourawski approach is 24%,
[47], p.158. It is therefore preferable to adopt for the pin strength calculations the exact solution reported in [55, p. 335], signalled
in [38] with relation to the stress analysis of gudgeon pins. The maximum shear stress computed with the exact formula at the point
A, and the shear stress at the point F are:
PR
(11)
where T is the shear force, ri⁠ and ro⁠ represent the pin inner and outer radii, respectively, v is the Poisson's ratio, and I is the moment
of inertia of the pin annular cross section:
(12)
D
where di⁠ and do⁠ are the pin inner and outer diameters. Introducing into formula (11) the expression (12) of I, the maximum shear
stress τm
⁠ ax becomes: TE
(13)
EC
The maximum analytical shear stress falls at the inner radius at the bore sides, point A of Fig. 6(c), and at the gap, thus confirming
the position of the maximum shear stress encountered in the photoelastic study of [38], Figs. 5 and 6. The fatigue cycle of the shear
RR
stresses is reversed. The numerical value of τm ⁠ ax reported in formula (13) refers to the above considered gudgeon pin dimensions and
load.
It is noted that the maximum of the ovalizing stress and of the shear stress falls at the same point, i.e. at the pin bore sides, point
A, and at the pin support transition, i.e. at the gap. Since the point A is particularly stressed, it constitutes the most likely fatigue crack
nucleation point, in agreement with the failure loci and modes examined in Section 3.
Table 8 compares the analytical maximum shear stress at the point A and that at the point F, in the vicinity of the gap, to the FE
CO
predictions, both in combustion and in induction.

The agreement between the analytical maximum shear stress and the FE predictions is acceptable. In [38] the deviation between
photoelastic measurements and analytical predictions is attributed to the close proximity of the lugs to the section considered.
Table 8
Comparison between analytical and FE shear stresses at the gap.
τ [MPa], points A and F, at the gap Combustion Induction

UN
Analytical, point A 125.37 −125.37

FE, point A 110.02 −121.26
Analytical, point F 78.35 −78.35
FE, point F 47.83 −39.22
19
The above analytical formulae (1) to (13) may be employed to predict the pin stresses during combustion. However, not all for-
mulae are applicable to the induction phase. In fact, as discussed before formula 2 and at the end of Section 4.3, the modelling of the
contact pressure profile in induction is formed by two components, namely by a uniform pressure, and by two lateral bumps whose
relative intensity is difficult to define accurately. Consequently, such contact pressure is less suitable for the development of analytical
F
design formulae. Table 9 summarizes the applicability of the analytical formulae to both combustion and induction.
Although referring to a specific assembly, the stress numerical values reported in formulae (1) to (13) provide some information
of reasonably general validity about the relative importance of the various gudgeon pin stress components. The ovalizing, bend-
OO
ing, shear, normal on vertical planes, stresses are the most relevant ones, and they exhibit an intensity of the same order; the Pois-
son'ratio axial stress is 30% the ovalizing stress; the normal stress along a horizontal plane is appreciably smaller. The overall stress
distribution in induction is less detrimental than that in combustion, essentially because the ovalizing stress attains lower values in
induction, see Table 4.
The fatigue cycles of the various stresses have been separately examined for the situations of fully floating pins or otherwise, and
they may be repeated or reversed. If the pin is fully floating, the fatigue cycle of all stresses should be conservatively modelled as
reversed. This assumption considerably eases the determination of the most stresses loci in a FE analysis, since the FE stress output
PR
is normally expressed in terms of the static equivalent stress according to von Mises, which may be employed in fatigue loading too,
provided that all the stress cycles are of the same type, for instance they are reversed.
It may be concluded that the analytical formulae developed in this section are sufficiently accurate to constitute a useful tool in a
preliminary design of gudgeon pins, which may then be refined with FE.
4.3. Fatigue cycles of displacement-related and stress-related parameters
This subsection is devoted to the analysis of an apparent contradiction between the fatigue cycles of displacement-related and
D
of stress-related parameters describing the pin ovalization. For clarity, reference is made in the following to nonfully floating pins.
Displacement-related parameters are examined first.
Fig. 14(a) reports a polar representation of the FE pin periphery ovalization for the pin reference geometry and loading, at the
pin central cross section; Fig. 14(b) similarly displays the pin ovalization at the gap. The undeformed pin periphery is included for
TE
comparison purposes. Both combustion and induction loads are considered. It is reminded that, in the reference geometry of Section
4, neat fit has been assumed. The scales reported along the horizontal and vertical axes allow the pin radial displacement to be quan-
tified.
It appears that the pin ovalization is similar for the two above cross sections, namely the central and gap cross sections, thus in-
dicating that the pin ovalization remains reasonably uniform along the pin portion coupled with the con-rod small end, see Fig. 8 of
[56].
EC
Fig. 14(a) and (b) show that, in the absence of an initial clearance, the ovalization of the pin sides, quantified by the radial dis-
placement of the point F of Fig. 2(a), follows a reversed cycle when passing from combustion to induction, both in the central and in
the gap cross section. The radial centripetal displacement during combustion of the point D of Fig. 2(a) is of the same order of the
centrifugal (e.g., during combustion) and centripetal (e.g. during induction) radial displacements of the point F. Conversely, the pin
ovalized shape during induction is essentially completely comprised within the undeformed profile, for both the central and gap cross
sections. The variation of the pin vertical diameter therefore approximately keeps to a repeated cycle when passing from combustion
RR
to induction.
Moving to the analysis of the fatigue cycles of stress-related parameters, the maximum ovalizing stress, located at the point A
falling at the pin bore sides, Fig. 2(a), and at the gap cross section, does not remain equal and opposite during induction and combus-
tion for the same intensity of the applied load. In fact, it may be shown that the pin ovalizing stress under the effect of the combustion
pressure is considerably higher than its counterpart due to the inertial forces, which therefore may be neglected. Consequently, the
ovalizing stress may be assumed to follow a repeated cycle.
In summary, while the cycle of the pin horizontal ovalization is approximately reversed, the cycle of the pin vertical ovalization
CO
and that of the maximum ovalizing stresses at the point A are essentially repeated. Consequently, the cycles followed by displace-
ment-related and stress-related parameters are markedly different. This surprising behaviour is examined and rationalized in the fol-
lowing.
Table 9
Applicability of the analytical formulae to both combustion and induction.
UN
Combustion Induction
σN⁠ along the segment A-F Y Y

σN⁠ along the segments B-D and C-E Y N
σo⁠ at the points A, F, B, D, C, E Y N
σa⁠ at the points A, F, B, D, C, E Y N
τ at the points A and F Y Y
20
F
OO
PR
D
TE
Fig. 14. Polar representation of the FE pin periphery ovalization: at the pin central cross section (a), and at the gap (b) both in combustion and induction.
The above apparent contradiction may be resolved by noting that the contact pressure profile between the gudgeon pin and the
con-rod small end during combustion, when the pin outer surface is in contact with the lower semi-circumference of the small end
EC
bore, noticeably differs from its counterpart during induction, when the pin is in contact with the upper semi-circumference of the
small end bore.
The lower part of the con-rod small end is stiffened by the shank, and, therefore, it is less flexible than the small end upper part.
Consequently, moving along the pin contact arc, the contact pressure distribution is less uniform when the pin-small end contact oc-
curs along the lower arc of the small end bore, i.e. during combustion. A similar result holds for the contact between the pin and the
piston bosses; for simplicity, the following discussion concentrates on the contact between the pin and the small end of the con-rod.
RR
This difference in terms of the contact pressure profile is underlined in [54], p. 248, where the contact pressure along the pin
upper semi-circumference has been assumed as uniform, whereas its analogue along the lower semi-circumference has been described
by a cos function. However, the assumption of uniform pressure distribution along the upper semi-circumference is not sufficiently
accurate to provide a convincing explanation to the above apparent contradiction. In fact, in [6,57,58], see also [59,60], it is found
that, during induction and in the absence of an initial clearance, the pressure curve remains reasonably uniform along the contact arc,
apart from two lateral pressure bumps; the bump central pressure is about 30% higher than the contact pressure along the flattish
zone, and the bump angular extent along two pin lateral periphery arcs is, say, π/6 = 30°, Fig. 15(a). From Fig. 5 of [6] it appears
CO
that the influence of the pin inner to outer radii aspect ratio on the pressure curve is limited, whereas from Fig. 7 of [6] the influence
of the initial clearance is to appreciably enhance the lateral bumps. To simplify the analysis, only perfect fits are considered in this
section, and a perfunctory analysis of the clearance effect is deferred to Section 6. In conclusion, to resolve the above apparent con-
tradiction, it is essential to correct the constant pressure profile during induction proposed in [54], by including two lateral bumps in
the description of the contact pressure.
The analytical modelling of the variation of the pin horizontal diameter during combustion and induction is examined in the fol-
lowing.
UN
To model combustion, a cos-squared contact pressure profile is here preferred, see Section 6, and the pressure profile is mirrored
with respect to the pin horizontal diameter, Fig. 12(b), according to a plane idealization.
To mimic induction, a uniform pressure profile is assumed along the pin semi-periphery, endowed with two lateral bumps, Fig.
15(a); the pressure profile is then mirrored with respect to the pin horizontal diameter, Fig. 15(b), according to a plane idealization,
see Fig. 12(b). The pressure bumps are then approximated with a uniform pressure acting on π/3 = 60° arcs,
21
F
OO
Fig. 15. (a) Uniform pressure profile along the pin semi-periphery, endowed with two lateral bumps over 30° arcs; (b) mirrored pressure profile according to a plane
idealization; (c) pressure bumps modelled as a uniformly distributed pressure over 60° arcs; (d) pressure bumps modelled as lateral concentrated forces Fb⁠ .
Fig. 15(c). To further simplify the model and, consequently, the computations according to Castigliano, the pressure bumps are mod-
elled as lateral concentrated forces Fb⁠ whose intensity, as suggested by the previous information on the intensity and extent of the
PR
pressure bumps, is assumed to be 0.157 times the vertical force compressing the pin, Fig. 15(d).
The pin horizontal ovalization exclusively due to such concentrated forces overrates, but only moderately, its counterpart due to
a uniformly distributed pressure along the arcs which the pressure bumps act on, the resultant force being the same. In fact, if the
uniform pressure is distributed along two antipodal arcs whose realistic angular extent is π/3, the pin horizontal ovalization for the
reference geometry diminishes by about 20% with respect to the situation of concentrated lateral forces. Since the aim of these com-
putations is to rationalize the above apparent contradiction rather than to provide highly accurate expressions for the evaluation of
the displacement- and stress-related parameters, the modelling of the lateral bumps in terms of concentrated forces is deemed to be
D
acceptable.
A plane model for the pin, accounting for bending, shear, and normal force deformations has been assumed, and Castigliano theo-
rem, [48], has been employed to determine the displacements and moments of these once statically redundant structures. The deflec-
tion and stress formulae obtained are too complex to be reported here; only numerical values for the reference pin configuration of
TE
Section 4, defined by ri⁠ = 5 mm and ro⁠ = 10 mm, have therefore been enclosed.
In combustion, the increase of the horizontal diameter due to a cos-squared pressure profile is 3.62 P/E, where P is the total load
per unit pin length, and E is the Young's modulus. (The numerical values refer to lengths expressed in mm and to loads expressed in N;
for simplicity, the stress- and displacement-related values have not been expressed in a normalized fashion, since they are employed
to assess their relative importance.) Moving to induction, for the same load P, the diminution of the pin horizontal diameter due to
a uniformly distributed pressure is 1.44 P/E; this result shows that the deflections exerted by the normal force become perceivable,
EC
and that a modelling of the pin including normal force effects is recommended. The diminution of the pin horizontal diameter due
to the two lateral pressure bumps modelled as horizontal concentrated forces Fb⁠ and whose intensity is 0.15 times the vertical force,
is 10.21×0.157 = 1.60P/E. The total diminution of the pin horizontal diameter is therefore 1.44 + 1.60 = 3.04P/E. This horizontal
diameter diminution in induction is about 3.04/3.62 = 84% the horizontal diameter increase in combustion, thus confirming the ap-
proximately reversed character of the pin horizontal ovalization.
The variation of the pin vertical diameter during combustion and induction is examined in the following. In combustion, again
RR
for a reference pin defined by ri⁠ = 5 mm and ro⁠ = 10 mm the decrease of its vertical diameter due to a cos-squared pressure profile
is 5.79 P/E, where P is the total load per unit pin length, and E is the Young's modulus. The increase of the horizontal diameter in
combustion is 3.62/5.79 = 0.63 times the vertical diameter decrease in combustion. These two diameter variations are therefore of
the same order.
Moving to the variation of the pin vertical diameter during induction, the diminution of the pin vertical diameter due to a uni-
formly distributed pressure is 1.44 P/E; the increase in the pin vertical diameter imputable to the two lateral pressure bumps modelled
CO
as horizontal concentrated forces Fb⁠ and whose intensity is 0.157 times the vertical force is 6.58×0.157 = 1.03P/E. The total diminu-
tion of the pin vertical diameter is therefore 1.44–1.03 = 0.41 P/E. This vertical diameter diminution in induction is only about 0.41/
5.79 = 7% the vertical diameter diminution in combustion, thus confirming the approximately repeated character of the pin vertical
ovalization.
In summary, in the previous calculations, the contact pressure in induction has been described as the sum of two components, one
component being a uniformly distributed pressure, and the other component describing the lateral bumps. The previous calculations
show that the diminution of the pin vertical diameter due to the first pressure component is essentially equal and opposite to its in-
UN
crease caused by the second pressure component.

A stress-related parameter is examined in the following, namely the cycle of the pin ovalizing stress when passing from combustion
to induction. The ovalizing stress at the pin bore sides, point A, is addressed, since they are the most stressed loci.
For the pin reference geometry, the ovalizing moment at the pin bore sides during combustion is 1.05 P, and it produces
compressive stresses. Moving to induction, the ovalizing moment due to the uniformly distributed pressure is 0.14 P, and it pro-
duces compressive stresses at the pin bore sides, whereas its counterpart caused by the lateral bumps modelled as two con-
centrated forces Fb⁠ is 2.29 Fb⁠ = 2.29×0.157 P = 0.36 P, and it produces tensile stresses at the bore sides. The total ovaliz
22
ing moment in induction is therefore 0.36 P-0.14 P = 0.22 P, and it produces tensile stresses at the bore sides. The ovalizing stress at
the pin bore sides during induction is therefore about 0.22/1.05 = 21% its counterpart in combustion, thus supporting the result that
the ovalizing stresses are negligible with respect to their counterparts in combustion, see Table 4, and confirming the approximately
repeated character of the pin ovalizing stresses at the point A of Fig. 2(a) for stationary or for semi-floating pins, see Section 4.2.2.
F
5. Interpretation of the pin Y-shaped crack in terms of Mohr circle
OO
This section aims at interpreting the Y-shaped crack propagation visible in many pins in the vicinity of the gap, see Fig. 12 of [7],
and Fig. 2(b), in terms of Mohr circle. A stress analysis is performed at the point A only for the compressive loading during combus-
tion, since the corresponding stresses are higher.
Fig. 16(a) shows the pin bending under the compressive load during combustion. The highest stresses occur at the points A of Fig.
2(a), at the pin bore sides and at the gap. In particular, the ovalizing stress and the shear stress attain their maximum value at the pin
support transition zone. At the point A of Fig. 16(a) there act a compressive ovalizing stress σo⁠ , a compressive normal stress σN ⁠ , an
axial stress due to the Poisson's effect σP⁠ , and a shear stress τ.
PR
The elementary cube face lying on the pin bore surface is unloaded, since this face falls on a free surface. In particular, since this
face is not loaded by shear stresses, the direction perpendicular to this face, i.e. the radial direction, is a principal direction. Conse-
quently, the stress state is locally plane, where the stress plane is defined by the axial and circumferential directions. Therefore, Mohr
circle may be employed to determine the two principal directions lying on such stress plane.
Fig. 16(b) shows the infinitesimal square element loaded by the above listed stresses, whereas Fig. 16(c) presents the cor-
responding Mohr circle; Fig. 16(d) displays the square element oriented according to the principal directions. The fatigue crack
propagates perpendicular to the maximum tensile principal stress σ1⁠ , as shown in Fig. 16(e). The FE calculations carried out
along the section A–F and for the pin reference geometry, provide the following stress values at the point A during
D
TE
EC
RR
CO
UN
Fig. 16. (a) Pin bending and representation of the normal, ovalizing, and Poisson stresses at the point A; (b) infinitesimal square element; (c) Mohr circle; (d) rotation
of the infinitesimal square along the principal directions; (e) crack direction; (f) Y-shaped crack.
23
combustion: σN⁠ = −52.41 MPa, σo⁠ = −121.64 MPa, σa⁠ = −31.81 MPa, τ=110.02 MPa. Fig. 16(d) indicates that the angle α defining
one of the principal directions is 29°; Fig. 16(e) shows that the angle β defining the crack inclination is 61°. This angular value is
independent of the amount of the load imposed, since the inclination of the principal stresses only depends on the relative value of
the stresses, and not on their absolute value.
F
If the pin is floating, as a result of the pin rotation the point A may move to its antipodal position. The shear stress changes its
direction, and a second symmetric crack defined by the angle β may propagate. Fig. 16(f) shows the two directions of the inclined
branches forming the bifurcation of the Y-shaped crack, and the two angles β.
OO
The crack branch propagating in the pin axis direction, Fig. 2(b), is seemingly imputable to the circumstance that, moving apart
from the pin support transition zone, the shear force diminishes, and the ovalizing stresses alone are consistent with an axial crack
propagation.
6. Critical observations on a design formula against excessive pin ovalization
The main deformation modes of the gudgeon pin are the bending mode and the ovalizing mode, Fig. 5(a) and (b). Usually, a check
PR
on the ovalization alone is carried out in the pin design phase. In fact, an excessive ovalization of the pin cross section produces high
frictional forces which, heating the pin, may cause seizure. The bending mode, instead, is less detrimental. In fact, the piston is made
of a relatively deformable aluminum alloy, and it deflects accompanying the steel pin bending, and adapting its deformation to the
bent pin, see Fig. 5(c) of [40].
According to [61], Section B16, p. 8, the parameter assumed as the indicator of the pin ovalization is the difference δ between the
deformed horizontal diameter and its vertical counterpart, see the inset of [61], Fig. 16.10. The allowable pin ovalization δ is:
(14)
D
where δ is expressed in [μm] and Dp⁠ is the cylinder bore expressed in [mm].
For Dp⁠ = 80 mm, which implies a pin diameter in the region of 20 mm, the maximum allowable ovalization δ derived from Eq. (14)
is about 20 μm.
TE
In [11] and in [54] additional pin ovalization thresholds are reported, that consider as the ovalization indicator only the increase
of the horizontal diameter, and not the decrease of the vertical diameter. The admissible increase of the pin horizontal diameter ac-
cording to [11] is 25 μm, whereas, according to [54], p. 240, it is comprised within 20 and 50 μm.
Additional recommendations on the allowable pin ovalization are provided by [12], where the BS 3537:1967 are reported. Ac-
cording to such specifications, the increase of the pin horizontal diameter over the pin undeformed diameter should be 1.0 μm/mm
EC
for pins equal to or less than 63.5 mm diameter, and 0.4 μm/mm for pins greater that 63.5 mm diameter.
The scope of this section is to formulate critical observations on the validity of formula (14) expressing the allowable pin ovaliza-
tion. The first hint on the possible presence of incongruences in the above values and formulas stems form the following consideration.
Since the definition of δ according to [61] is the sum of the increase of the pin horizontal diameter and of the decrease of its verti-
cal diameter, the admissible ovalization expressed by Eq. (14) according to [61] should be about twice that according to, say, [11],
whereas their thresholds are comparable.
The analytical expression for the difference δ between the deformed horizontal diameter and its vertical counterpart δ in terms of
RR
the applied load and pin geometry, as reported in [61], is:
(15)
where P is the total load, do⁠ the pin outer diameter, l the pin length, t the pin radial thickness, and k a numerical coefficient that
CO
depends on the units employed and on the Young's modulus. For a steel pin, by defining the load P in [N], the pin geometry in [mm],
and δ in [μm], then k is 0.255×10− ⁠ 3
according to [61].
In [61], details are not provided on the radial distribution of the pressure profile employed to determine the analytical expression
(15). To clarify which pressure profile has been adopted in [61], cos and cos-squared contact pressure profiles have been applied to
a purely flexural model. It is in fact unlikely that, in those years, modellings including shear and normal force effects had been de-
veloped for practical purposes. (In Fig. 2 of [62] a pressure profile not acting in the pin radial direction is proposed, see also [16].
This unrealistic pressure profile has not been considered in this paper.) The results closer to expression (15) have been obtained with
UN
a cos pressure distribution, endorsed in [54], p. 239. The corresponding expression for δ, interpreted as the difference between the
deformed horizontal diameter and its vertical counterpart, computed with the aid of Castigliano theorem, is:
24
F
(16)
OO
where rm
⁠ is the pin mean radius and I is the moment of inertia of the pin section shown in Fig. 12(b). By putting E = 210,000 MPa,
and by adopting the commonplace aspect ratio in a four stroke engine, according to which the pin bore diameter is half its outer
PR
diameter, k of Eq. (16) becomes 0.362×10− ⁠ 3
. The above k value overrates formula (15) endorsed by [61] by 42%.
The cos-squared pressure profile, favoured in [16], produces the following formula for δ, interpreted as the difference between the
deformed horizontal diameter and its vertical counterpart:
(17)
D
By setting E = 210,000 MPa, and by adopting a pin bore diameter half its outer diameter, expression (17) may be formulated ac-
cording to Eq. (15), where the value of k now becomes 0.502×10−
TE ⁠ 3. The value of the coefficient k is inconsistent with formula (15)
according to [61], since it is almost exactly twice.

The two above signalled discrepancies, namely i) the inconsistency between the allowable pin ovalization, Eq. (14) according to
[61], and that of [11], and ii) the inconsistency between the pin ovalization formula (15) extracted from [61] and formula (17) ac-
cording to a purely flexural model loaded by a cos-squared pressure profile, would both disappear if the ovalization parameter accord-
ing to [61] were interpreted as the increase in the pin horizontal diameter, and not as the sum of the increase in the pin horizontal
diameter and of the decrease in the pin vertical diameter. In conclusion, the present authors believe that the admissible δ, computed
EC
with Eq. (14) according to [61], as well as the analytical prediction (15) for δ, should be interpreted as the increase of the horizontal
diameter alone.
Additional ovalization formulae are reported in formula (15) of [62] and in [11,12,54, p. 240].
To further confirm the presently favoured meaning to be attributed to the ovalization parameter δ, it was decided to carry out a
specific FE analysis for an actual steel gudgeon pin geometry extracted from the realm of high performance applications, for which
detailed indications on the maximum clearance and loading were available to the authors. The pin geometry is defined by an inner
RR
radius ri⁠ = 6 mm, outer radius ro⁠ = 11 mm, and length l = 56 mm. In addition, the axial thickness t of the con-rod small end is 22.6 mm,
and the bore Dp⁠ is 111.4 mm. Finally, to ease the comparison between the pin ovalization during combustion and induction, the same
load intensity of 40,000 N, representing the actual combustion force, has been adopted to mimic both the compressive force during
combustion and the tensile force during induction. Four diametral clearances C between the pin on one hand, and the small end bore
and the piston bosses, on the other hand, have been considered, namely 0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03 mm. The ratio between the maximum
diametral clearance examined and the pin outer radius is 0.0027, in agreement with the suggested maximum diametral clearance of
0.003 times the pin outer radius, see [6].
CO
It is underlined that, in all the following Figures, symbol δ means the increase of the pin horizontal outer diameter.
Fig. 17 reports the increase δ of the pin horizontal diameter along the pin semi-length, where the origin of the axial z-coordinate
coincides with the pin centre, for the four clearances C considered, both in combustion and induction. The vertical line referring to
z = 11.32 mm denotes the gap axial position with respect to the pin centre. The horizontal line referring to δ=0.016 mm reports the
analytical prediction (15) for δ according to [61] in terms of the applied load and the pin geometry. Finally, the horizontal line refer-
ring to δ=0.024 mm reports the admissible δ ovalization (14) according to [61].
UN
The local oscillations affecting some extremities of the curves of Fig. 16 are ascribable to the presence of oil grooves locally dis-
turbing the pin deformations, e.g. [63].
The analytical expression (15) supplies a reasonably accurate prediction of the central pin ovalization, provided that δ is inter-
preted as the increase of the pin horizontal diameter. Similarly, the admissible pin ovalization (14) constitutes a correct threshold
when adopting the above interpretation of δ.
25
F
OO
PR
D
TE
Fig. 17. Increase δ of the pin horizontal diameter along the pin semi-length, for the four clearances C considered, in combustion and induction.
Moving axially along z, the pin ovalization δ attains its maximum at the pin centre, and it remains reasonably constant along the
whole central support, in agreement with Fig. 8 of [56]; it then decreases moving from the gap to the pin extremities.
EC
In agreement with Fig. 14(a) and (b), addressing a neat fit configuration, the maximum pin ovalization δ, i.e. the increase of the
pin horizontal outer diameter, falling at the pin centre, is positive during combustion and negative during induction; in addition, for
null clearance, the horizontal variation of the pin outer diameter is approximately equal and opposite in combustion and induction,
provided that the intensity of the applied load is the same.
Fig. 17 shows that the presence of clearance is to augment (reduce) the pin horizontal ovalization δ during combustion (induction).
Consequently, as the clearance is increased, the pin horizontal ovalization does no longer attain approximately equal and opposite
RR
values during induction and combustion. The effect of the initial clearance C on the pin ovalization is considerable: for C passing from
0 to 0.03 mm, the increase of the horizontal diameter during combustion reaches 45%.
While Fig. 17 addresses the pin ovalization along various axial positions during combustion and induction, and for a selection of
clearances, but it reports only the horizontal ovalization, Fig. 18 displays the pin ovalization only along the pin central cross section
and along the gap, during combustion and induction, but it provides a polar representation of the pin ovalization for the two extremal
clearances of Fig. 17. The undeformed pin profile is included in Fig. 18 for comparison purposes.
Fig. 18 confirms the main results of Fig. 14, obtained for different pin geometry, load, and for null clearance. In particular, a) the
CO
pin ovalization remains similar for the central and gap cross sections; b) for null clearance, the horizontal ovalization is approximately
equal and opposite in combustion and induction, provided that the intensity of the applied load remains the same; c) for the clearance
interval examined, the pin ovalized shape during induction is essentially completely comprised within the undeformed profile.
In the following, the effect of an initial clearance on stress-related parameters is briefly addressed. Tables 10 and 11 collect the FE
forecasts for the ovalizing stress σo⁠ , the axial stress σa⁠ , the normal stress σN
⁠ along the segment A–F, and the shear stress τ, computed
at the pin bore sides, point A of Fig. 2(a), and at the gap, for the same geometry and loading of Fig. 18, and for the four above clear-
ances C, in combustion and in induction, respectively. The analytical values according to Section 4, referring to a null clearance, are
UN
included.
The increase with C of displacement-related parameters is considered in the following. From Fig. 17 the relative growth of the hor-
izontal diameter at the pin centre due to combustion, as the clearance passes from 0 to 0.03 mm, is about (0.016–0.011)/0.011 = 45%.
26
F
OO
PR
D
TE
Fig. 18. Polar representation of the FE pin periphery ovalization: at the pin central cross section (a), and at the gap (b) for the extremal clearances, both in combustion
and induction.
Table 10
Effect of clearance on the ovalizing, axial, normal, shear stress at the gap during combustion.
EC
Point A at the gap in combustion C = 0 mm C = 0.01 mm C = 0.02 mm C = 0.03 mm Analytical
σο⁠ [MPa] −234.63 −259.71 −281.67 −299.90 −246.73

σa⁠ [MPa] −66.37 −73.37 −81.31 −88.32 −74.02
σΝ⁠ [MPa] −101.27 −101.63 −101.59 −101.34 −71.42
τ [MPa] −169.51 −167.44 −165.03 −162.45 −180.98
RR
Table 11
Effect of clearance on the ovalizing, axial, normal, shear stress at the gap during induction.
Point A at the gap in induction C = 0 mm C = 0.01 mm C = 0.02 mm C = 0.03 mm Analytical
σο⁠ [MPa] −14.84 −41.41 −65.23 −86.62

σa⁠ [MPa] 17.95 8.38 −0.63 −8.97
σΝ⁠ [MPa] −84.14 −84.28 −84.54 −84.76 −71.42
CO
τ [MPa] 166.02 166.16 165.66 164.75 180.98
Moving to stress-related parameters, from Table 10 it appears that, as the clearance augments from 0 to 0.03 mm, the relative in-
crease of the ovalizing stress σo⁠ , computed at the point A at the gap during combustion, is about (299.90–234.63)/234.63 = 28%. This
value closely agrees with Fig. 9 of [27], where the value of C/ro⁠ = 0.00272 was almost identical to that here considered of 0.0027,
and an equally identical increase of about 28% was found for the maximum contact pressure.
UN
It may be concluded that the stress increase due to an increment of the clearance is considerably smaller than the raise of the
pin ovalization. Consequently, a preliminary stress analysis of the gudgeon pin may be carried out neglecting the effect of an initial
clearance, whereas a correct analysis of the pin ovalization should account for the presence of clearance.
The clearance effect on the pin stresses may be accounted for with the coefficient Φ proposed in [33] for pin-lug-type geometries,
and employed in [27] with regard to the stress analysis of the con-rod small end. This application is beyond the scope of this paper.
27
7. Conclusions
The geometries commonly adopted in gudgeon pins for internal combustion engines have been examined. Various methods for
F
reducing the pin weight have been considered. The selection of the appropriate clearance has been addressed. The most typical failure
modes have been classified and interpreted in the light of stress analysis.
The available approximate analytical formulae have been assessed versus FE forecasts with regard to a reference pin geometry and
OO
loading, and an improvement to a formula expressing the pin normal stress has been presented. It has been shown that the analytical
formulae are sufficiently accurate to constitute a useful tool in the preliminary design of gudgeon pins, which may then be refined
with FE.
The fatigue cycles of stress- and displacement-related parameters have been examined in detail. It has been found that, while the
cycle of the pin horizontal ovalization is approximately reversed, the cycle of the pin vertical ovalization and that of the maximum
ovalizing stresses at the pin bore sides are approximately repeated. The effect of the initial clearance on the contact pressure and on
the pin ovalization has been explored for selected clearance values. It has been clarified that the presence of clearance increases both
PR
the pin ovalization and the maximum contact pressure with respect to a neat fit configuration, the first relative increase being almost
twice the second one.
A typical Y-shaped fatigue crack has been interpreted with the aid of Mohr circle.
An error in a classical design approach based upon the containment of the pin ovalization has been hypothesized, and a correction
has been proposed and supported with numerical examples.
Appendix A
D
Various analytical formulae expressing both stresses and deflections are reported for a ring loaded by a cos-squared pressure profile
applied along its mean radius during combustion, Fig. 12(b), for various models, i.e. according to the rectilinear beam theory, to a
curved, purely flexural beam, and to a curved beam including the bending, normal force, and shear effects. The numerical values
address the reference geometry of the con-rod assembly of Section 4.
Table 12
TE
Analytical formulae for a ring loaded by a cos-squared pressure profile.
Rectilinear beam, purely

flexural Curved beam, purely flexural Curved beam, flexural + shear + normal force
EC
Bending moment (Mo⁠ ) at

point A
Mo⁠ for gudgeon pin refer- −1.062 P 1.062 P 1.156 P
ence geometry
Bending and normal stress
(σ) at inner border at point A
σ for gudgeon pin reference −0.355 P 0.417 P −0.455 P
RR
geometry
Horizontal diameter varia-
tion (δo⁠ )
δo⁠ for gudgeon pin reference 4.913 F/E 4.797 F/E 5.186 F/E
geometry
Vertical diameter variation
(δv⁠ )
CO
δv⁠ for gudgeon pin reference 4.913 F/E 4.797 F/E 7.661 F/E
geometry
References
[1] W. Ward, Piston pins - material choices, In: Race Engine Technology, June/July 2012.
[2] R. Giovannozzi, Costruzione di Macchine, Patron Editrice, Bologna, 1965.
UN
[3] H. Maass, Der Kolbenbolzen, ein einfaches Maschinenelement, VDI-Verlag, 1975.

[4] B.M. Klebanov, D.M. Barlam, F.E. Nystrom, Machine Elements: Life and Design, CRC Press, 2007.
[5] MAHLE GmbH, Cylinder components, In: Piston Pins and Piston Pin Circlips, MAHLE GmbH, 2010, pp. 27–47.
[6] A. Strozzi, F. De Bona, Hoop stresses in the con-rod small end, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D J. Automob. Eng. 219 (11) (2005) 1331–1345.
[7] E. Mickel, P. Sommer, Zur Festigkeit von Kolbenbolzen, MTZ-Motortechnische Zeitschrift 11 (1941) 352–356.
[8] F. Caboni, Costruzione di Macchine, Pitagora, Bologna, 1974.
[9] A. Strozzi, Costruzione di Macchine, Pitagora, Bologna, 1998.
[10] T.O. Hunt, Gudgeon pin loading, Automob. Eng. 47 (1957) 177–178.
[11] G. Rothmann, Berechnung der Kolbenbolzen von Fahrzeugdiesel-motoren, In: Mitteilungen aus den Forschungsanstalten von GHH— Konzern, 4, 1963, pp.
231–238.
28
[12] B. Lawton, D.E.G. Crutcher, Paper 7: mechanical stresses in pistons, gudgeon pins, and connecting rods, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. SAGE Pub. 181 (8) (1966)
20–30.
[13] K. Deicke, W. Schubert, PVD-coated high-performance bearings, Auto Technol. 2 (5) (2005) 72–74.
[14] A. Garro, Progettazione Strutturale del Motore, Levrotto & Bella, Torino, 1992.
[15] I. Serban, N. Ispas, G. Bobescu, C. Arama, The experimental research of the combustion engine piston pin stress, In: The 4th International Conference Ad-
vanced Composite Materials Engineering, (COMAT 2012), Brasov, Romania, 2012, pp. 433–438.
F
[16] R. Giovannozzi, Sul calcolo dello spinotto del pistone, L'Aerotecnica 23 (1943) 146–155.
[17] L. Buty, M. Petricenko, L'Attelage mobile des moteurs rapides, Société des Editions Technip, Paris, 1964.
[18] D. Vignocchi, Elementi di Progettazione del Motore. Athena, Modena, 2002.
OO
[19] B.W. Ji, J.L. Li, X.P. Chen, Research on piston pin's strength calculation based on FEA, Adv. Mater. Res. 341–342 (2011) 296–300.
[20] M.A. Fefeu, G. Perrin, (1991) U.S. Patent No. 5,027,996. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
[21] I. Serban, N. Ispas, G. Bobescu, C. Arama, Theoretical investigations about the influence of the piston pin stress on the combustion engine performances, In:
The 4th International Conference Advanced Composite Materials Engineering, COMAT 2012, Brasov, Romania, 2012, pp. 439–443.
[22] S. Lauria, Riduzione della massa dello spinotto automobilistico tramite la definizione di una geometria innovativa: analisi agli elementi finiti (Bachelor The-
sis), University of Modena and Reggio-Emilia, 2004.
[23] P. Folęga, R. Burdzik, Ł. Konieczny, State of stress analysis for structural solutions of combustion engine piston pins, Solid State Phenom. 236 (2015) 70–77.
[24] M. Werkmann, M. Tunsch, R. Kuenzel, Piston Pin Related Noise-Quantification Procedure and Influence of Pin Bore Geometry. No. 2005-01-3967, SAE Techni-
cal Paper, 2005.
[25] D. Dini, L.N. Mastrandrea, M. Giacopini, E. Bertocchi, Numerical investigation of the cavitation damage in a high performance engine conrod big end bearing
PR
via a mass-conserving complementarity algorithm, In: Soc. of Tribologists and Lubric. Engs. Annual Meeting and Exhibition, 2014, pp. 586–589.
[26] BS3537:1979, Specification for Gudgeon Pins Up to 200 mm Diameter, 1979.
[27] A. Pioli, A. Strozzi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini, R. Rosi, Influence of the initial clearance on the peak stress in connecting-rod small ends, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D
J. Automob. Eng. 223 (2009) 769–782.
[28] W. Ward, Reciprocating ideas, In: Race Engine Technology, Dec/Jan 2010, pp. 40–48.
[29] A. Strozzi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini, E. Bertocchi, L. Bertocchi, Achievement of a uniform contact pressure in a shaft–hub press-fit, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C J.
Mech. Eng. Sci. 227 (3) (2013) 405–419.
[30] L. Marmorini, A. Baldini, E. Bertocchi, M. Giacopini, R. Rosi, A. Strozzi, On the loosening mechanism of a bush press-fitted in the small end of a connecting
rod, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D J. Automob. Eng. 0954407011417498 (2011).
D
[31] M. Parlamento, Soluzione teorica esatta per la pressione di contatto tra spinotto e piede di biella: applicazione all'ottimizzazione della geometria del
piede (Master Thesis), University of Modena and Reggio-Emilia, 2001.
[32] M. Ciavarella, P. Decuzzi, The state of stress induced by the plane frictionless cylindrical contact. I. The case of elastic similarity, Int. J. Solids Struct. 38 (26)
(2001) 4507–4523.
[33] M. Ciavarella, A. Baldini, J.R. Barber, A. Strozzi, Reduced dependence on loading parameters in almost conforming contacts, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 48 (9) (2006)
TE
917–925.
[34] A. Strozzi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini, E. Bertocchi, S. Mantovani, A repertoire of failures in connecting rods for internal combustion engines, and indications on
traditional and advanced design methods, Eng. Fail. Anal. 60 (2015) 20–39.
[35] A.Y. L'vovskii, O.Y. Beilina, Increasing the rigidity of wrist pins, Met. Sci. Heat Treat. 23 (2) (1981) 136–137.
[36] Z. Yu, X. Xu, H. Ding, Failure analysis of a diesel engine piston-pin, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14 (1) (2007) 110–117.
[37] I. Etsion, G. Halperin, E. Becker, The effect of various surface treatments on piston pin scuffing resistence, Wear 261 (2006) 785–791.
[38] H. Fessler, H.B. Padgham, A contribution to the stress analysis of piston pins, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 1 (5) (1966) 422–428.
[39] D.J. Grieve, DMME-Stresses in a Gudgeon Pin, in: http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/desnotes/gudgeon.htm, 2003.
EC
[40] Y. Wang, H. Gao, Research on optimization for the piston pin and the piston pin boss, Open Mech. Eng. J. 5 (2011) 186–193.
[41] J.E. Robinson, Piston-boss and wrist-pin design, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 87 (4) (1965) 412–420.
[42] G. Di Paola, C. Maglioni, P.G. Molari, M. Spuria, Verifica del danno e riprogettazione delle zone di contatto biella-spinotto-pistone in un motore da compe-
tizione. Convegno Nazionale XIV ADM-XXXIII AIAS, Innovazione nella Progettazione Industriale, Bari, Italy, 2004.
[43] F. Franco, Fatica ad alto numero di cicli per motori alternativi di grandi dimensioni. Giornata di studio IGF, Torino, Italy, 2008.
[44] A. Bejger, K. Gawdzińska, S. Berczyński, Application of Pareto analysis for the description of faults and failures of marine medium power engines with self igni-
tion, Arch. Mech. Technol. Autom. 32 (3) (2012) 7–13.
[45] M. Giacopini, S. Sissa, R. Rosi, S. Fantoni, Influence of different temperature distributions on the fatigue life of a motorcycle piston, Inst. Mech. Eng. D J. Auto-
RR
mob. Eng. 229 (9) (2015) 1276–1288.

[46] J.R. Barber, Intermediate Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 175, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
[47] A. Strozzi, Fondamenti di Costruzione di Macchine. Pitagora, Bologna, 2018, (in press).
[48] A. Blake, Design of Curved Members for Machines, Industrial Press, 1966.
[49] J.R. Barber, Elasticity, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992.
[50] A. Strozzi, E. Bertocchi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini, On the applicability of the Boussinesq influence function in modelling the frictionless elastic contact between
a rectangular indenter with rounded edges and a half-plane, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 229 (6) (2015) 987–1001.
[51] C. Maglioni, Stati tensionali e deformativi nella biella, nello spinotto e nel pistone di un motore da competizione - Parte Prima (Master Thesis in Mechanical
Engineering), University of Bologna, Italy, 2003.
CO
[52] M. Spuria, Stati tensionali e deformativi nella biella, nello spinotto e nel pistone di un motore da competizione - Parte Seconda (Master Thesis in Mechanical
Engineering), University of Bologna, Italy, 2003.
[53] J.E. Robinson, The design and development of pistons for automobile engines, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng Automob. Div. 179 (1) (1964) 181–211.
[54] A.I. Kolchin, V.P. Demidov, Design of Automotive Engines, Mir, Moscow, 1984.
[55] A.E.H. Love, A Treatise on the Theory of Elasticity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1927.
[56] H. Fessler, T.H. Hyde, Stress distribution in gudgeon pins, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 32 (5) (1997) 375–386.
[57] D.J. White, L.R. Enderby, Finite-element stress analysis of a non-linear problem: a connecting-rod eye loaded by means of pin, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 5 (1)
(1970) 41–48.
[58] A. Francavilla, O.C. Zienkiewicz, A note on numerical computation of elastic contact problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 9 (4) (1975) 913–924.
UN
[59] E. Dragoni, A. Strozzi, Analysis of a split ring inserted into a circular housing, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 21 (2) (1986) 59–70.
[60] A. Strozzi, A. Baldini, M. Giacopini, R. Rosi, E. Bertocchi, Contact stresses within a split ring inserted into a circular housing, J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 44 (8)
(2009) 671–688.
[61] M.J. Neale, The Tribology Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1995.
29
[62] K. Schlaefke, Zur Berechnung von Kolbenbolzen, In: Molortechnische Zeitschrift, 2, 1940, pp. 117–120.
[63] W.G. Seaberg, Connecting rod big end design using finite element analysis and bench testing validation. In ASME 2009 Internal Combustion Engine Division
Spring Technical Conference, pp. 31–39.
F
OO
PR
D
TE
EC
RR
CO
UN
30
View publication stats

Pagination EFA 3370

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pagination EFA 3370

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A repertoire of failures in gudgeon pins for internal combustion

Article in Engineering Failure Analysis · February 2018

Antonio Strozzi Andrea Baldini

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Enrico Bertocchi Sara Mantovani

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Crashworthiness, composite materials View project

contact problems View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

di⁠ pin inner diameter

lc⁠ length of the pin central part

lateral parts are supported by the piston bosses.

see Chapter 3 of [5] and [37].

3. Pin failure modes

4.2. Analytical stresses

4.2.1. Normal stress σN⁠

of Eq. (1) for the reference pin geometry and loads.

σN⁠ [MPa], segment A–F Combustion Induction

Po⁠ = P/4 and Fo⁠ = P/8.

where lc⁠ is the length of the pin central part.

where ll⁠ is the global length of the pin lateral parts.

The mean analytical normal stress σN

4.2.2. Ovalizing stress σo⁠

σN⁠ [MPa], segment B–D Combustion Induction

Analytical, max 59.08–23.20 = 35.88

σN⁠ [MPa], segment C–E Combustion Induction

Analytical, max 44.75–17.57 = 27.18

those at the pin bore sides.

σo⁠ [MPa], points A, B, C, F, D, E, at the gap Combustion Induction

4.2.3. Axial stress σa⁠

Analytical, point D, E ±244.46 ±244.46

4.2.4. Shear stress τ

Analytical, point A 0.3×-127.41 = −38.22

σa⁠ , points A and F at the gap, [MPa] Combustion Induction

Analytical, point A −0.3×127.41 = −38.22

The maximum shear stress τm

predictions, both in combustion and in induction.

τ [MPa], points A and F, at the gap Combustion Induction

Analytical, point A 125.37 −125.37

4.3. Fatigue cycles of displacement-related and stress-related parameters

σN⁠ along the segment A-F Y Y

crease caused by the second pressure component.

6. Critical observations on a design formula against excessive pin ovalization

the applied load and pin geometry, as reported in [61], is:

according to [61], since it is almost exactly twice.

σο⁠ [MPa] −234.63 −259.71 −281.67 −299.90 −246.73

Point A at the gap in induction C = 0 mm C = 0.01 mm C = 0.02 mm C = 0.03 mm Analytical

σο⁠ [MPa] −14.84 −41.41 −65.23 −86.62

τ [MPa] 166.02 166.16 165.66 164.75 180.98

Rectilinear beam, purely

Bending moment (Mo⁠ ) at

[3] H. Maass, Der Kolbenbolzen, ein einfaches Maschinenelement, VDI-Verlag, 1975.

mob. Eng. 229 (9) (2015) 1276–1288.

View publication stats

You might also like