Report Thyssen Review 8

2008 International
ANSYS Conference
THYSSEN KRUPP CONNECTING

ROD STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
AUTHORS: Fernando Amaral

Giovanni de Morais
Marcelo Bardino
Rafael Lima e Silva
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

reserved.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction.
2. Material Properties.
3. Mechanical Set Up.
4. Analytical calculation of contact pressure between bearing and connecting rod.
5. Numerical analysis of contact pressure between bearing and connecting rod.
6. Analytic joint face contact pressure due to the minimum clamp force (68kN)
7. Numeric joint face contact pressure due to the minimum clamp force (68kN)
8. Estimative of the error in the contact pressure calculation.
9. Analytic joint face contact pressure due to the maximum clamp force (78kN)
10. Numeric joint face contact pressure due to the maximum clamp force (78kN)
11. Estimative of the error in the contact pressure calculation.
12. Analysis of the 3D stresses state due to the clamp force.
13. Hertz contact calculation between bearing and crankshaft.
14. Hertz contact calculation between bearing and crankshaft.
15. Computational analysis of the joint face opening due to the tractive loading of 30kN.
16. Study of the bearing deformation under maximum preload condition.
17. Study of the bearing deformation under tractive loading and max preload.
18. Study of the bearing deformation under compressive loading and max preload.

reserved.
CONTENTS (cont.)
19. Input of bearing shell profile

19.1 Bearing Profile (LEMON SHAPE PROFILE)
19.2 APDL commands to introduce the profile to the bearing (LEMON SHAPE PROFILE)
19.3 Sub-routines called by the main code.
19.4 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the bearing contact pressure, under tractive loading of 30000N
19.5 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the clearance under tractive loading of 30kN
19.6 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the bearing contact pressure, under compressive loading of 160kN
19. Alignment of bearing shell profile
20.1 Aligned Bearing Profile
20.2 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the bearing contact pressure, under tractive loading of 30000N
20.3 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the bearing contact pressure, under compressive loading of 160kN
21. Analysis of the TRIAXIAL Stress state generated by the tractive loading.
22. Analysis of the TRIAXIAL Stress state generated by the compressive loading.
23. Pressures on the contact pairs
24. Multi-axial fatigue study.
25. Summary
26. Bibliography

reserved.
1. Introduction
The present work regards the analysis of the joint face of the connecting rod
(CUMMINS ISB), focusing the study of stresses and deformations of the
components in contact, besides the resultant fatigue life. For the fatigue
calculation it was used the PCP (peak combustion pressure) loading and the
exhausting inertial loading.
It has been also analyzed the nodal displacements of the bearing inner surface,
due to the maximum clamp force and the inertial loading of 30kN.
The CAD geometry, boundary conditions, mechanical press fit and material
properties were supplied by the customer. Some of them are available in the
next pages.
The results were validated step by step. As much as possible the results were
compared to available analytical formulas. So, we believe, it was possible to
minimize the total error in the end of each development stage, what give us
more reliability in the fatigue analysis results.

reserved.
2. Material Properties
MATERIAL PROPERTIES - CONNECTING ROD
Elasticity modulus: E=210GPa
C-70
Poisson ratio: 0,3

Yielding limit: Sy=550MPa
Ultimate Strength: Su=900MPa
Fatigue limit for 10e6 cycles: 320MPa
MATERIAL PROPERTIES - CRANKSHAFT

SAE 1548

STEEL
Poisson ratio: 0,3

MATERIAL PROPERTIES - BOLTS
steel under
Structural
class 10.9
treatment

thermal
Poisson ratio: 0,3

MATERIAL PROPERTIES - BEARING SHELL

Structur

al Steel
Poisson ratio: 0,3

reserved.
3. Mechanical Set Up
• Connecting rod and bearing shells:
Radial Interference: 0.013mm
• Crankshaft and bearing shells:
Radial Clearance (GAP): 0.0385mm

reserved.
4. Analytical Contact Pressure
Calculation
• Interference (δ): 0.013mm
• Bearing elasticity modulus (E1): 210GPa
Bronzina
bearing Biela • Conrod elasticity modulus (E2): 210GPa
conrod
υ1): 0.3
• Poisson ratio for bearing (υ
• Poisson ratio for connecting rod (υυ2): 0.3
• Ri: Inner radius: 34.50mm
• R: Radius of the contact surface: 36.50mm
• Ro: Outer radius: 43.50mm
• Equation for contact pressure calculation (p):

δ
p=
r  ro2 + r 2  r  r 2 + ri 2 
 2 2 + υ 2  +  2 2 − υ1 
E2  ro − r  E1  r − ri 
0,013
p= p = 3.18MPa
36,5  43,52 + 36,52  36,5  36,52 + 34,52 
 + 0,3  +  − 0,3 
210 ×103  43,52 − 36,52  210 × 103  36,52 − 34,52
  

reserved.
5. Numerical Contact Pressure
Calculation
In this computational model considered

3.06MPa only the press-fit loading (between bearing
and connecting rod).
The average contact pressure is 3.06MPa,
with standard deviation of 0.13.
The maximum and minimum values are,
respectively, 3.64MPa e 2.58MPa.
The difference between the analytical and numerical values are due to the geometric
details of the model used in the calibration.
ERROR: 3.9%
Compared to the average values.

reserved.
Minimum Bolt Preload
Clamp force of 68kN

reserved.
6. Analytic Joint Face Contact Pressure due
to the Minimum Clamp Force of 68kN
According project specification, the minimum clamp force is 68kN. The contact
area of the joint faces is 383.5mm2. Due to the symmetry of the analysis model,
this value shall be multiplied by 2.
F
Contact Pressure: Pc =
Área
2 × 68000
Pc =
2 × 383.48
Pc = 177 .32 MPa

reserved.
7. Numeric Joint Face Contact Pressure due
to Minimum Clamp Force of 68kN
Since we are working with half model (symmetry), the input loading is 34kN on each
bolt. At this stage, all other loading were suppressed in order to evaluate only the
results generated by the clamp force.

reserved.
to Minimum Clamp Force of 68kN
As can be noted below, there is a strong contact pressure gradient. The averaged
contact pressure is about 182.5MPa, with standard deviation of 43.4Mpa. The
cause for the irregular distribution is the non-uniform cross section.
Cross Section
182.5 MPa

reserved.
8. Error Estimative in the contact
pressure calculation
The verification can be performed by the equilibrium of the applied forces in the
model. In this simulation we must have a contact pressure close to zero.
68000N
34000N 34000N

reserved.
The maximum contact pressure is about 2.81MPa. The maximum resultant GAP value is
about -0.0008mm (-0.8 µm), i.e., there is a little penetration. It is a numerical effect only
and it is not supposed to occur in the real model.
Pressure Opening
Since the force balance was checked we can validate the applied clamp force. The contact
pressure is small enough.

reserved.
Maximum Bolt Preload
Clamp force of 78kN

reserved.
9. Analytic Joint Face Contact Pressure due
to the Maximum Clamp Force of 78kN
According project specification, the maximum clamp force is 78kN. The contact
area of the joint faces is 383.5mm2. Due to the symmetry of the analysis model,
this value shall be multiplied by 2.
Contact Pressure: F
Pc =
Área
2 × 78000
Pc =
2 × 383.48
Pc = 203 .40 MPa

reserved.
to Maximum Clamp Force of 78kN
Since we are working with half model (symmetry), the input loading is 39kN on each
bolt. At this stage, all other loading were suppressed in order to evaluate only the
results generated by the clamp force.

reserved.
to Maximum Clamp Force of 78kN
As can be noted below, there is a strong contact pressure gradient. The averaged
contact pressure is about 210.4MPa, with standard deviation of 49.85Mpa. The cause of
the irregular distribution is the non-uniform cross section.
Cross Section
210.4 MPa

reserved.
The verification can be performed by the equilibrium of the applied forces in the
model. In this simulation we must have a contact pressure close to zero.
78000N
39000N 39000N

reserved.
The maximum contact pressure is about 2.63MPa. The maximum resultant GAP value is
about -0.0008 mm (-0.8 µm), i.e., there is a little penetration. It is a numerical effect only
and it is not supposed to occur in the real model.
Pressure Opening
Since the force balance was checked up we can validate the applied clamp force.
The contact pressure are small enough.
reserved.
12. Analysis of the 3D Stress State due
to the maximum clamp force (78kN)
The pictures are very clear. The

clamp force applies a strong
compression stress field in the
component, exception made for
the small area at left, which
MOHR circle is sketched just
below, for better understanding
of the tri-axial stress state.

reserved.
Crankpin / Bearing
shell contact analysis

reserved.
13. Hertz Contact Calculation between
bearing and crankshaft
Tractive loading of 30kN
The aim of the present study is to compare the numerical model with the analytical
one, in order to get the calibration parameters.
-Rb: Outer Radius: 34.50mm

-Rv: Inner Radius: 34.462mm
-Elasticity modulus of the outer surface (E1): 210GPa
-Elasticity modulus of the inner surface(E2): 210GPa
-Poisson ratio of the outer surface (υ1): 0.3
-Poisson ratio of the inner surface (υ2): 0.3
- Thickness of the contact area (L): 18mm*
*18mm only due to the symmetry.

reserved.
We can get the Hertz contact pressure through the following equations:
Determination of the geometric constant (B):
1 1 1  1 1 1 
B=  −  B=  −  B = 1.59 × 10 −5 mm −1
2  Rv Rb  2  34.462 34.50 
Determination of the material constant (m):

1−υ 2
m=
E
1 − 0.32
- Outer surface: m1 = m1 = 4.33 ×10 −6 MPa −1
2.1×105
1 − 0.32
- Inner surface: m2 = m2 = 4.33 ×10 −6 MPa −1
2.1× 105

reserved.
Determination of the contact parameter (a):
2 m1 + m2 F
a= × ×
π B L
2 4.33 ×10 −6 + 4.33 × 10 −6 15000

a= × −5
×
π 1.59 ×10 18
a = 16.96mm

reserved.
Average contact pressure evaluation (PMED):
F 15000
Pmed = Pmed =
2× a× L 2 ×16.96 ×18
Pmed = 24.57 MPa

Pmed
Pmáx = 1.273 × Pmed Pmáx = 1.273 × 24.57
Pmáx Pmáx = 31.27 MPa

reserved.
14. Hertz contact calculation between
In this analysis we have suppressed all other components, since we are going to study
only the region between bearing and crankshaft. The input loading was only 15kN (half of
the total loading, due to the symmetry). The radial clearance between bearing and
crankshaft is of 0.0385mm.
In order to make the computational model

still closer to the analytical one, it was added
a fixed support boundary condition all over
the bottom part of the bearing. Also, the
contact between bearing and connecting rod
has been defined as bonded. So, the flexural
behavior will not affect the results too much.
The contact crankshaft/bearing was defined
as FRICTIONAL, with the frictional coefficient
of 0.3.

reserved.
Third principal stresses (compressive) – Crankshaft:
-10.5MPa
-33.79MPa

reserved.
Third principal stresses (compressive) – Bearing:
3.55MPa
-32.30MPa
-102.49MPa

reserved.
Comparing the maximum contact pressure values (33.67MPa) and
the expected value (analytical) the error is about 7.6%.
ERROR < 8%
Contact Pressure [MPa] 0MPa
17.15MPa
33.67MPa

reserved.
Joint Face Opening Analysis
Minimum clamp force of 68kN +
Tractive Loading of 30 kN

reserved.
15. Computational Analysis of the joint face
opening due to the tractive loading of 30kN
This analysis aims to evaluate the behavior of the joint face, under the inertial
loading (tractive loading of 30kN).
In this analysis are considered the effects of the press fit, gaps and the clamp
force, which objective is to keep the joint face closed. So, the same parameters
used by the previous analysis were adopted here.
Symmetry plane

reserved.
The analysis were carried out

through 2 load steps in order to
improve the numerical convergence.
In the first load step was applied a
displacement (d=0.039mm) on all
components, excepting the
crankshaft, i.e.,
The displacement value was just enough to turn on the contact between the
connecting rod and crankshaft. In the second load step was applied a loading of
15kN, in the direction shown by the figure above. The clamp force is 34kN. It is
important to remember the value of the applied loading are half of the total
value, since symmetry was taken into account.

reserved.
10x
In the figure at left it is possible to realize that there is

not a trend to open the joint face, indicated by the
contact pressure distribution. It can be seen (just
above) there are small spots loosing contact. Basically,
it occurs due to the bending phenomenon.
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 300x 34 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

reserved.
Von Mises Equivalent

Stresses [MPa]
100x
100x

reserved.
The misalignment of the applied loading (related to the joint
face normal) causes a strong bending, generating the stresses
that can be seen below. (Deformed Scale. 100:1)
Maximum principal Minimum principal

stresses S1[MPa] stresses S3[MPa]

reserved.
Bearing Deformation
Analysis

reserved.
16. Bearing deformation under
maximum preload
Radial Displacement [mm]
4µm
2.4µm 0.2µm 6µm
Angular Position(θ)
-42µm -49µm
9µm
9µm
-13µm
-22µm

reserved.
tractive loading and max preload
1.3µm
Angular Position(θ)
-40µm
59µm
F -37µm 54µm
-41µm
-40µm
-37µm
-36µm
These displacement values refer to the
deformation and the displacement caused by the
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights GAP between
39 the conrod and crankshaft. ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
reserved.
compressive loading and max preload
4.6µm
Radial Displacement [mm]
Angular Position (θ)

-12µm -40µm
F -5.4µm
-58µm
25µm
-33µm
30.6µm -26µm

reserved.
Input of Bearing Shell
Profile

reserved.
19.1 Bearing Shell Profile
180º
joint face
The profile at right is applied to the
bearing after machining and the clamp
force. Although the conrod being angled,
currently, the profile is aligned to the
joint face.
The next slides will show the

APDL routines necessary to apply
this profile to the finite element
=40 ο
θ=40
model.
90º -90º
Tractive
Loading
Direction
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 42
0º ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
reserved.
19.2 APDL to apply the (Lemon Shape
Profile)
1 2

reserved.
Profile) (cont.)
3 4

reserved.
Profile) (cont.)
5 6

reserved.
19.3 Sub-routines called by the main
code.
These commands exports the nodal
Commands that produce the
displacements in order to get the graphical
bearing machining, after the
representation of the lemon shape.
clamp force.

reserved.
19.4 Influence of Lemon Shape Profile on the
bearing contact pressure under tractive
loading of 30kN
Relief areas: Area (2) greater than Area (1)
1 2
F The area of maximum pressure moved from
3 center to outer side.
1
Split surface
3 F
Model without profile 2
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 47 Model with profile (Lemon Shape)
ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
reserved.
loading of 30kN
It is very clear, looking at the pictures, the
=15 ο
θ=15 Model with profile area reduction (27%) due to the applied
(Lemon Shape) lemon shape profile. We have reduced
42º of contact area. Taking the joint face
as a reference, the pressure distribution is
not symmetric.
Model with profile

(Lemon Shape)
=27 ο
θ=27
reserved.
clearance under tractive loading of 30kN
The gaps have increased from 1
micron up to 100 microns near the
cracked plane, due to the machining
and the lemon shape profile. The
higher displacement gradient found is
due to the shear between the bearing
faces.
Model with profile (Lemon

Shape) Model without profile

reserved.
bearing contact pressure under compressive
loading of 160kN
Reduction of 15º (about 18%) in the
contact area under the compression
loading. Model with profile
(Lemon Shape)
Model without profile.

reserved.
Alignment of Bearing
Shell Profile

reserved.
20.1 Aligned Bearing Shell Profile
180º
joint face
For an angled rod, the lemon shape
must be aligned to the tractive loading
direction to its maximum performance
The next slides will show the

APDL routines necessary to apply
this profile to the finite element
=40 ο
θ=40
model.
90º -90º
Tractive
Loading
Direction
© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 52
0º ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary
reserved.
loading of 30kN
The peak pressure here is higher due
to the contact between the bearing
shells (look at the next slide). It is
important to point that the chamfer
was not considered in model
40 MPa 19 MPa
47 MPa 25 MPa
Model with profile (Lemon Shape)

Model with aligned profile

reserved.
loading of 30kN
The figure shows the small area where
there is penetration of the surfaces. It
is clear that this occurs on the contact
between the bearing shells. A chamfer
in the end of the bearing shell will
eliminate this penetration and
consequently the contact pressure too.

reserved.
loading of 30kN
The peak pressure here is higher due
to the contact between the bearing
shells. It is important to point that the
chamfer was not considered in model
30 MPa
25 MPa


reserved.
bearing contact pressure under compressive
loading of 160kN


reserved.
Stress and Fatigue
Analysis

reserved.
21. Analysis of the Tri-axial stress
state generated by the tractive loading
Maximum
Principal (S1) 338MPa
Minimum
Principal (S3) -597MPa

reserved.
22. Analysis of the Tri-axial stress state
generated by the compression loading
Maximum
Principal (S1)
333MPa
-500MPa
Minimum Qualitatively, both stress states

Principal (S3) (tensile and compressive) are
very similar. See previous slide.
The reason for it is the high
value of the clamp force
adopted.
See item 12 for further details.

reserved.
23. Pressure on the contact pairs
It is interesting to note
here the interference
stresses relief due to the
trend of opening the joint
face in the tractive
loading.
At right, the contact pressure between

the bearing and crankshaft. A quick
estimative would take us to divide the
F=80kN by the area (600mm2), resulting
the pressure of 133MPa.
The contact pressure between the

connecting rod and the bearing, at left, is
quite higher as a function of the imposed
press fit. This is a typical region subjected
to wear loading and even fretting fatigue.
reserved.
24. Multiaxial Fatigue Analysis
The shown region at left has a particularity. With the value
of 615.6MPa, yielding takes place under the compressive
loading (yielding limit = 550 MPa). The both conditions
investigated (traction of 30kN and compression of 160kN),
however, set up a scenario at which the higher alternating
equivalent stress is not greater than 62MPa (see table
below*). According to Dan Van [1] (High Cycle Metal
Fatigue, page 13), the real difference between high cycle
fatigue and low cycle fatigue is in the range of the plastic
deformation at the most stressed region of the analyzed
component. Although the material had been plastically
deformed, the difference between the both external loading
applied (alternating loading) is inside the elastic limit.

reserved.
24. Multiaxial Fatigue Analysis
Traction Loading Fatigue safety factor = 1.42

(Node 40220) (FF=1.42)
Compression Load
(Node 40220)

reserved.
25. Summary
• The simulation of a connecting rod with ANSYS allows the analysis of

effects like clearance closing and fatigue life.
• Contact pressure result on the joint face may be a good criteria to predict
joint opening, but only if the dispersion of clamp force is known (related to
the adopted tightening method).
• The analysis of bearing shells internal surface deformation due to

maximum bolt preload confirms the need of machining the connecting rod
big end under the bolt preload specified for the engine final assemble.
• To analyze the connecting rod under engine operation loads it is

necessary to guarantee the circularity of the big end and apply the profiles
of bearing shells, therefore is necessary to simulate somehow the
machining of conrod big end after the preload of bolts. In this work was
applied the NMODIF command after the preload analysis.

reserved.
25. Summary
• The best way to predict clearance closing with the approach adopted here
is to analyze the pressure and gap/penetration of the crankshaft/bearing
shells contacts.
• Simulating critical points of engine load cycle, 0º (traction) and 360º

(compression) it was obtained relief of contact area, this indicates wear
reduction of bearing shells.
• The profile was aligned with the direction of the traction load to ensure the
maximum relief on the contact area. This action resulted in a pressure
reduction under tractive loading but a pressure increase under compressive
loading.
• A structural static simulation is a good estimative of the performance of the

connecting rod, but is necessary a EHL analysis to ensure engine
operational parameters like POFP (Peak Oil Film Pressure), MOFT
(Minimum Oil Film Thickness) and PACP (Peak Asperity Contact Pressure).
reserved.
26. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Dang Van et al. High-Cycle metal fatigue (2003), Springer-Verlag Wien, New York, 1st
Edition.
[2] Jaime Tupiassú Pinho de Castro, Fadiga sob Cargas Reais de Serviço (notas de aula,
2002), PUC, Rio de Janeiro.
[3] OWEN, D.R.J.; HINTON, E. (1980). Finite elements in plasticity: Theory and Practice.
2.ed. Swansea, Pineridge Press.
[4] NORMAN E. DOWLING (2007). Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Prentice Hall, 3rd
ED.
[5] Papadopoulos IV, Davoli P, Gorla C, Filippini M, Bernasconi A. A comparative study of
multiaxial high cycle fatigue criteria for metals. Int J Fatigue 1997; 19:219 35.
[6] Mamiya EN, Araújo JA. Fatigue limit under multiaxial loadings: on the definition of the
equivalent shear stress. Mech Res Commun 2002; 29:141 51.
[7] S. Suresh (1998). Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition.

reserved.

Report Thyssen Review 8

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Report Thyssen Review 8

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2008 International

THYSSEN KRUPP CONNECTING

AUTHORS: Fernando Amaral

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 2 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

19. Input of bearing shell profile

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 3 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 4 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Poisson ratio: 0,3

MATERIAL PROPERTIES - CRANKSHAFT

Elasticity modulus: E=210GPa

Poisson ratio: 0,3

Elasticity modulus: E=210GPa

Poisson ratio: 0,3

MATERIAL PROPERTIES - BEARING SHELL

Elasticity modulus: E=210GPa

Poisson ratio: 0,3

Radial Interference: 0.013mm

• Crankshaft and bearing shells:

Radial Clearance (GAP): 0.0385mm

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 6 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

• Equation for contact pressure calculation (p):

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 7 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

In this computational model considered

Compared to the average values.

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 8 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 9 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Pc = 177 .32 MPa

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 10 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 11 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 12 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 13 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 14 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 15 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Pc = 203 .40 MPa

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 16 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 17 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 18 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 19 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

The pictures are very clear. The

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 21 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 22 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

-Rb: Outer Radius: 34.50mm

*18mm only due to the symmetry.

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 23 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Determination of the geometric constant (B):

Determination of the material constant (m):

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 24 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Determination of the contact parameter (a):

2 4.33 ×10 −6 + 4.33 × 10 −6 15000

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 25 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Pmed = 24.57 MPa

Pmáx = 1.273 × Pmed Pmáx = 1.273 × 24.57

Pmáx Pmáx = 31.27 MPa

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 26 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

In order to make the computational model

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 27 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Third principal stresses (compressive) – Crankshaft:

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 28 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

Third principal stresses (compressive) – Bearing:

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 29 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 30 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary

© 2008 ANSYS, Inc. All rights 31 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary