Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
www.autosteel.org
Outline
Overview and Overall Goal
Forged Steel & Cast Iron Crankshafts and Comparisons
Experimental Work
Specimen tests
Component tests
Analytical Work
Life predictions
Dynamic load analysis and FEA
Optimization
Conclusions
www.autosteel.org
* Cast aluminum
* Cast iron
Connecting Rod
* Forged steel
* Powder metal
Crankshaft
* Forged steel
Connecting Rod
Crankshaft
www.autosteel.org
Publications of Results
Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Forged vs. Competing Process Technologies: A Comparative Study, A.
Fatemi and M. Zoroufi, 24th Forging Industry Technical Conference, Cleveland, OH, October 2002.
Fatigue Life Comparison of Competing Manufacturing Processes: A Study of Steering Knuckle, M. Zoroufi
and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical paper 2004-01-0628, SAE World Congress 2004, Detroit, MI, March 2004.
Durability Comparison and Life Predictions of Competing Manufacturing Processes: An Experimental Study of
Steering Knuckle, M. Zoroufi and A. Fatemi, 25th Forging Industry Technical Conference, Detroit, MI, April
2004.
Experimental Durability Assessment and Life Prediction of Vehicle Suspension Components: A Case Study of
Steering Knuckles, M. Zoroufi and A. Fatemi, Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 220, pp. 1565-1579,
2006.
Connecting Rod
A Comparative Study of Fatigue Behavior and Life Predictions of Forged Steel and PM Connecting Rods, A.
Afzal and A. Fatemi, SAE paper 2004-01-1529, SAE World Congress 2004, Detroit, MI, March 2004.
Connecting Rod Optimization for Weight and Cost Reduction, P. Shenoy and A. Fatemi, SAE Technical
paper 2005-01-0987, SAE World Congress 2005, Detroit, MI, April 2005.
"Dynamic Analysis of Loads and Stresses in Connecting Rods", P. Shenoy and A. Fatemi, Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 220, pp. 615-624, 2006.
"Comparative Durability Study of Competing Manufacturing Process Technologies", 26th Forging Industry
Technical Conference, A. Fatemi, M. Zoroufi, P. Shenoy and A. Afzal, Chicago, IL, November 2005.
www.autosteel.org
Crankshaft Study
Overall Objectives
Outline
Literature Survey on Crankshafts
Experimental Work
Specimen Testing (Forged steel and ductile cast iron)
Component Testing (Forged steel and ductile cast iron)
Analytical Evaluations
www.autosteel.org
www.autosteel.org
Crankshaft Nomenclature
www.autosteel.org
Crankshafts
Forged Steel Crankshaft
Outdoor power equipment engine
460 cc, 12.5 HP
3.9 kg
www.autosteel.org
Specimen Testing
Specimen Tests
Strain-controlled tensile tests
Strain-controlled fatigue tests
Procedures and practices as
outlined by ASTM
Round specimens machined
from unmachined crankshafts
Closed-loop servo-hydraulic
axial load frame
www.autosteel.org
Specimen Geometry
www.autosteel.org
900
800
700
600
Cast Iron Monotonic
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
www.autosteel.org
8.0
9.0
10.0
Forged Steel
Cast Iron
(2)
100
1E+1
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
1E+8
Forged steel has better S-N fatigue performance than the ductile cast iron.
At long lives, for a given stress, forged steel has a factor of 30 longer life.
www.autosteel.org
Material Comparison
10000
Forged Steel
Cast Iron
1000
(2)
(2)
100
1E+1
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
1E+8
Fatigue life is often controlled by stress and strain ranges at root of the fillet.
www.autosteel.org
100
90
Results
80
70
60
50
40
30
Cast Iron
20
10
0
-100
-50
50
100
www.autosteel.org
150
200
250
Mechanical Properties
Forged Steel
Cast Iron
Ratio*
YS (MPa)
625
412
0.66
UTS (MPa)
827
658
0.80
%RA
58
0.10
58
0.08
359
263
0.73
y = 2555.8x
R2 = 0.8128
y = 2144.6x-0.1389
2
R = 0.9536
Forged Steel
Cast Iron
100
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
Lives based on crack initiation (small crack on the order of a few mm).
For a given bending moment, forged steel crankshaft has a factor of 6 longer life.
www.autosteel.org
y = 2401.8x-0.1218
2
R = 0.8656
-0.1651
Forged Steel
y = 3110.8x
R2 = 0.9579
Cast Iron
100
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
For a given bending moment, the forged steel crankshaft has an order of magnitude
longer life.
www.autosteel.org
Fractured Components
www.autosteel.org
Sa Sm
+
=1
S Nf Su
S Nf = (2 N f )
'
f
Forged Steel
1.E+06
Cast Iron
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
www.autosteel.org
1.E+07
Pressure (bar)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Slider-Crank Mechanism
(ADAMS Simulation)
20000
Max Bending
Range of Bending
Range of Torsion
25
15000
Critical Speed
20
Resultant
5000
0
0
90
180
270
360
450
-5000
Bending
Torsional
-10000
Crankshaft Angle (Deg)
540
630
720
10000
Force (N)
Max Torsion
15
10
0
2000
2800
Engine Speed (RPM)
www.autosteel.org
3600
Digitized Models
Forged Steel
Cast Iron
www.autosteel.org
Service Life
(1 of 4 steps)
Applied load;
constant
pressure
over 120
Fixed
edge in
directions
1&2
over 180
www.autosteel.org
Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom
over 180
Mesh Generation
2.54
3.81
0.762
3.81
1.27
3.81
3.81
3.81
Cast Iron
0.762
3.81
2.54
3.81
Forged Steel
0.762
3.81
3.81
3.81
www.autosteel.org
www.autosteel.org
Range
Mean
250
200
Critical Location
200
150
Critical Location
100
50
150
100
50
0
0
180
360
540
720
-50
-50
Location Number
www.autosteel.org
Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom
Fixed surface
in all degrees
of freedom
www.autosteel.org
Optimization Flowchart
www.autosteel.org
Final Optimized
Geometry
www.autosteel.org
Manufacturing
Adding fillet
rolling
Material
Using MicroAlloyed Steel
Standard
Bare Sample
www.autosteel.org
Conclusions
Yield strength of the forged steel is 50% higher than that of the
cast iron, while the ultimate strength is 26% higher. Ductility and
impact toughness of the forged steel is also significantly higher.
Material fatigue strength at 106 cycles for the forged steel is 37%
higher than that of the cast iron, resulting in 30 times longer life.
Component fatigue tests show fatigue strength based on crack
initiation for the forged steel crankshaft to be 27% higher than
that of the cast iron. This results in a factor of 6 longer life.
Fatigue crack growth was a significant portion of the life for both
crankshafts. The crack growth rate for the forged steel was
slower than that of the cast iron.
www.autosteel.org
Conclusions
Life predictions using the S-N approach provided very reasonable
estimations for the forged steel crankshafts. Predictions for the
cast iron crankshafts were less accurate but were conservative.
Dynamic load analysis results in more realistic stresses, whereas
static analysis overestimates the results.
Considering the torsional load in the overall dynamics analysis has
no effect on von Mises stress at the critically stressed location.
Geometry optimization resulted in 18% weight reduction of the
forged steel crankshaft. Fillet rolling results in significant increase
of the crankshaft fatigue strength.
www.autosteel.org