Cummins Crankshaft and Bearing Analysis Process

Ilya Piraner, Christine Pflueger, Oliver Bouthier

Cummins, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper outlines the steps taken for the preliminary crankshaft and bearing design
analysis at Cummins. Major crankshaft dimensions must be chosen early in the engine design
process because they affect overall engine dimensions. Proper selection of the crank dimensions
requires multiple design iterations to avoid design alterations during the development stage when
any change is very costly. Therefore, the crankshaft and bearing analysis should be not only
quick, but also accurate and robust because some of the parameters may not yet be well defined
at this preliminary stage.
A number of considerations need to be addressed in the preliminary crankshaft and
bearing design analysis. Among these considerations are crank stress, bearing performance,
integrity of the crankshaft joints, and the impact of the crank on the block stress and deformation.
Though each consideration may require a detailed and complicated analysis, simplified
approaches have been developed over the years by the industry and successfully applied at
Cummins.
This paper describes a two-stage process adopted by Cummins for crankshaft analysis.
The first stage is a simplified analysis, which combines a “quasi-static” crankshaft model and a
rigid hydrodynamic bearing model to address crankshaft fillet bending stress and bearing
performance characteristics. The torsional vibration effects are accounted for independently
based on a simple one-dimensional dynamic mass-elastic model. At the second stage, the
crankshaft bending loads are combined with the torsional loads to simulate stress at any location
in the crankshaft finite element (FE) model. Stresses at various locations in the crank are
calculated by using sets of unit load cases applied to a single throw FE model. The appropriate
unit load cases are scaled according to the load, and combined to calculate the stresses in the
crank. The process is repeated in an efficient manner to simulate multiple engine conditions for
rapid crankshaft and bearing preliminary design.

2. CRANKSHAFT ANALYSIS HISTORY

Figure 1 gives a brief overview of the major developments in crankshaft analysis.
Historically, the major concern has been around crankshaft fillet stress associated with crank
bending. A so-called “statically determinate” scheme was utilized in the early days of diesel
engine development. Each throw was considered separately without interaction with
neighboring throws. This allows the calculation of bending moments in the webs, which, in
conjunction with stress concentration factors, allow for stress calculation in the fillets. The
simplicity and conservative nature of this scheme made it very popular. Application to multi-
cylinder engines, particularly marine, led to developments in the crankshaft torsional vibration
analysis focused on the stress calculation around oil holes in the pin journals.
The first applications of a “statically indeterminate” scheme were based on a rigid block.
Unloading action of the bending moments in the main journals caused significant reduction of
the calculated bending stress. Accounting for realistic main bearing support stiffness led to some

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 1 of 13

 2000 Combined Stress σ=102% (VM)
σ=109% (SP)
1999 Virtual Engine ×
t=150×

1985 Cummins Coupled Solution

σ=88% t=10× ×
1984 Goenka’s Approximation

1983 Booker/Welsh - Coupled Solution

1975 Booker’s Mobility/Impedance Method

Statically Indeterminate Scheme -

Non-Linear Supports
1970s

Late Bending + Torsion in Fillet only σ=104%

1960s

Statically Indeterminate Scheme -

Elastic Supports σ=87% t=4× ×
1960s

Statically Indeterminate Scheme -

1940s Rigid Supports σ=80% t=2× ×

1920s Torsional Analysis ×

t=1×

1899 Statically Determinate Scheme

σ=100% ×
t=1×

Figure 1: Timeline of Crankshaft Analysis Processes

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 2 of 13

increase in the fillet stress.
Since the 60s, combining the bending stress in the fillet calculated based on the “quasi-
static” statically indeterminate scheme, with the torsional stress calculated based on a dynamic
model using stress concentration factors has become a standard. In the 70s attempts were made
to model main bearings as nonlinear springs [1]. But with the development of quick and
efficient methods of bearing analysis [2,3], a coupled, quasi-static crank model and
hydrodynamic bearing model became a viable alternative, particularly since the publication of
Goenka’s mobility curve fits [4]. This technique was implemented in the mid-80s [5]. As Figure
1 shows, the crankshaft fillet bending stress has further increased due to allowance for the
journal motion within the clearance space.
Major developments in commercial multi-body dynamics software in the late 90s made it
possible to consider crankshaft dynamics along with the block dynamics, coupled through the
non-linear hydrodynamic bearings [6,7]. Although modern high-speed computers have enough
power to carry out this kind of simulation in a matter of hours, current traditional methods
remain attractive because of their relative simplicity and because of the efficiency with which
they solve. Cummins has worked with the ADAMS/Engine consortium to develop a virtual
engine model, which allows NVH analysis in addition to crankshaft stress analysis. While this
approach looks promising for future application, incorporating simpler models into ADAMS/
Engine may allow preliminary crankshaft analysis to be performed quickly within a common
environment.

2.1. Historical Cummins Procedure

The current procedure, which has been in place for about 20 years, follows the major
failure modes: (a) fatigue through the crank web, with the crack initiation starting at the main or
pin fillet. This failure mode is caused by an excessive normal stress in the fillet associated with
bending of the crank throw in its plane; (b) fatigue through the pin journal, with the crack
initiation starting at the oil hole. This failure mode is caused by an excessive shear stress
associated with the throw torsion.
To address these issues, two independent procedures were developed. First, the fillet
bending stress analysis uses an FE model of a single throw to calculate stress/moment ratios for
two locations (pin and main fillets) for two major load cases (firing and inertia load). The entire
crankshaft is considered as a “quasi-static” beam model on non-linear supports (main bearings).
This allows fast calculation of the bending moments at the web center in the plane of the throw
as a function of the crank angle Mb(α). Depending on the sign of the moment, it is multiplied by
one of the stress/moment ratios for each main and pin fillet. This produces stresses in the main
σm(α) and the pin σp(α) fillets as a function of crank angle. Knowing stress over the entire
engine cycle, one can calculate mean and amplitude of the bending stress and then, the effective
fully reversed stress (EFR stress) to compare it against the endurance limit in the deterministic
sense (fatigue margin) or in the probabilistic sense (unreliability %). Second, a pin nominal
torsional stress analysis is performed. The crankshaft is considered as a discrete linear dynamic
torsional model. Calibration of the mass–elastic model is performed by tuning the model to
match experimental data. Calculation of the torque acting in the connections between the mass
stations of the model is performed with the calibrated torsional mass-elastic model. The analysis
is done in the frequency domain but time domain data can easily be generated as a synthesis of
the major orders. The amplitude of the nominal stress in each pin (with no regard to stress
concentration factor) is calculated. The mean nominal shear stress is calculated based on the

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 3 of 13

engine brake power. The amplitude and the mean stresses are combined together in the “shear”
EFR stress, which compared against the crank nominal torsional endurance limit, again, in the
deterministic and/or probabilistic sense.
Although consideration of bending and torsional loads based on different crank models
(one static and the other dynamic) may be viewed as an inconsistency, this approach was
confirmed in many experimental studies carried out in the 60s and 70s. Figure 2 demonstrates
the comparison between bearing reaction forces calculated with the quasi-static and dynamic
models. The character and the amplitude of the forces are very similar. On the other hand, static
torque may vary significantly from the dynamic torque, even away from resonance, Figure 3a.
The dynamic model may be tuned easily to match experimental data, Figure 3b.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Main Bearing Reactions calculated with (a) dynamic and (b) quasi-static models at
1000 rpm

(a) (b)

Figure 3: (a) Static vs. Dynamic Torque. (b) Calibrated vs. uncalibrated cranknose torsional
displacement

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 4 of 13

2.2. Modern Approaches to Crankshaft Combined Stress Analysis
There are two major approaches for stress calculation: (a) based on entire crank, and (b)
based on single throw.
The first procedure can be described as follows:
- Run full crank reduced model (dynamic) to calculate main bearing reactions and
torques.
- Model entire crankshaft with FEM .
- Constrain the model at the flywheel end, as shown in Figure 4.
- Run analysis applying all possible loads (at the pin and main bearing locations) as
unit factors (pressure distributed over bearing area) one at a time. Since direction of
the bearing load is unknown, the load is applied at each of four 90-degree arc.
- Scale and sum up the FE results for each crank angle according to the loads found in
the first step.

Figure 4: Whole crank model

Number of load cases: Pin bearing load − (4 × # throws) + Main bearing load − (4 × (#
throws +1)) + Vibratory torque − (1 × (# throws +1)) + Crank inertia −1 case. Total number of
load cases: 9 × # throws + 5 + 1 load cases for the entire crank - 60 for a 6 in-line engine.
FEV employs a variation on this method [6]. In this case the actual loads are applied to
the crank instead of unit load factors. This requires that the FE solution be performed for every
crank angle and multiple engine conditions.
Yet another method used by GM/LMS [8] and MDI [9] is to perform a crankshaft
dynamic analysis to obtain modal participation factors at each point in time. Stress shapes are
obtained from an FE analysis. These are multiplied by the modal participation factors and
summed up to obtain total stress.
According to these approaches, all the features in the entire crankshaft should be modeled
sufficiently accurately at the same time. Alternatively, individual portions of the crankshaft may
be modeled in detail, but this requires that the process be repeated multiple times. Therefore,
great computational power is required.
Another approach is published by AVL [10] and can be described as follows:
- Run dynamic analysis on a reduced model.
- Cut out one throw of the crank through the main journal middle cross-sections (detailed
FE).
- Constrain one cross-section and apply unit kinematic boundary conditions, x1, y1, z1 −
translational and α1, β1, γ1 – angular displacements, one at a time and obtain
corresponding stress states.
- Scale stress tensors based on the displacements found in the dynamic analysis (x, y, z,
α, β, γ) and sum them up to produce the combined stress tensor.
Number of load cases: 6 × # different throws.
The underling assumption is that the way the crankshaft load is applied does not affect
the stress in the throw as long as the load results in a certain average displacement of the main

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 5 of 13

journal middle cross-section. Our experience says that, at least for fillets in bending, the stress
may vary by 20% depending on how the load is applied (on the top portion of the pin – firing
load, or on the bottom portion – inertia load). Also, it was found that stress in the crank web
pockets and in the end couterbore is very sensitive to the way the load is applied.

2.3. New Cummins Method for Combined Stress Analysis

Objectives:
- method should be quick and accurate
- account for first order effects
- utilize our tools and experience
As discussed previously, there is a high level of confidence in our current tools for
crankshaft load prediction. Therefore, it was decided to combine the bending loads coming from
static crank and bearing analysis with the torsional loads coming from dynamic torsional
analysis. The procedure can also be used with crank loads from different simulation software
(e.g. ADAMS) at a later time.
The proposed method is a generalization of our current approach to the crankshaft stress
analysis and consists of 3 steps:
a) Cut out a single throw, Figure 5, import into ANSYS, and auto mesh with mesh refinements
in areas of interest.

THROW 3 THROW 5

Oil holes with

fillets/chamfer

Lightening
pockets

Figure 5: Two different single-throw sections of crankshaft from CAD model for FE analysis

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 6 of 13

 Consider the following load cases for a detailed FE model, Figure 6 − Figure 8:

1.1 F1f 1.2 F1i 1.3

Mb

1.4 F2f 1.5 F2i 1.6

Mb

Figure 6: Crankshaft In-Plane Loads

2.1 2.2 2.3

F1p F1n
T T Mb

2.4 2.5 2.6

F2p F2p Mb
T T

2.7 2.8

T T T

Ttv

Figure 7: Crankshaft Out-of-Plane Loads

Crankshaft inertia force represents a separate load case, which may be in-plane or of a
general nature:
3.1
Crank inertia force
at unit speed

Figure 8: Crankshaft inertia force

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 7 of 13

 Mb designates bending moment, T designates torque and F designates the force applied to
the crank pin. Load cases 1.1, and 1.2 represent front cylinder loads of a V-type engine. In the
first case, the load is applied on the top portion of the pin while in the second case the load is
applied on the bottom portion. Similarly, 1.4 and 1.5 represent the back cylinder loads of a V-
type engine. In case of an in-line engine only one set of these loads is used. Cases 1.3 and 1.6
simulate bending moment in the cross-section resulting from the neighboring throw.
In case of out-of-plane loading, application of the pin load (2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5) results
in a certain torque in the main journal, which should balance the torque induced by the load.
This has to be accounted for in the boundary conditions for the corresponding load case.
Case 2.8 represents a vibratory torque applied to the throw due to the torsional vibration.
Since the direction of the main bearing reactions is not known at this point in the
analysis, the following four types of constraints for each load case are considered, Figure 9:
1 2 3 4

Figure 9: Constraints at the main bearings

Real load application at the main bearing depends on the hydrodynamic conditions in the
bearing and will vary from crank angle to crank angle. However, it is reasonable to assume that
due to clearance in the bearing a little bending moment is generated in the bearing. Therefore,
the resultant bearing load should be applied at the middle of the journal. It is important, though,
to distribute the load over the bearing area, which can be done automatically if the journal is
placed on a soft layer, which in turn is surrounded by a stiff layer constrained at the middle point
as shown in Figure 10. The layers should be divided in segments to enable proper load
application without over-stiffening the journal. This approach ensures reasonable pressure
distribution while avoiding a lengthy calculations involving modeling a non-linear contact
between journal and the bearing. In the event that future analysis accounts for moments in the
bearings, the moment may be applied as an additional moment at the end of the throw.

Soft layer

Journal

Stiff layer

Figure 10: Modeling journal/bearing interactions

This results in (15 × 4 × #different throws) load cases for a v-type engine, or (11 × 4 ×
#different throws) load cases for an in-line engine.
For each load case stress tensor {Si}j can be obtained for each node of the FE model,
where “j” is node number and “i” is the stress component.

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 8 of 13

b) Quasi-static crank and bearing analysis + dynamic torsional analysis or ADAMS provide real
values for load factors for each crank angle and each throw, which can be written as a vector
L:
L′ = [ L1 ' , R] (1)
L1′ = [ M x , M y , M x , M y , T , T , Fx , Fy , Fx , Fy ,ω ] , R = [ Rx , Ry , Rx , Ry ]
f f b b f b f f b b f f b b
(2)
where:
M- bending moment in the main journal
T- torque in the main journal
F- force applied to pin journal
R- force applied to the main journal
Indices “f” and ‘b” indicate front and back position
Indices “x” and “y” indicate two projections of the load.
c) A Fortran routine calculates stress for each node at each crank angle {σ}={S}{L1} and then
converts it into EFR stress and, finally, into fatigue margin and unreliability for each node.
Bending moment, crank pin loads and the engine speed are used directly as the scale
factors for the stress states {S}. The sign of the pin loads is used to differentiate between the load
cases, while the sign of the reaction force (R) is used to differentiate between the boundary
conditions for a given load case.
The scale factor for the vibratory torque can be calculated based on the pin loads and the
torque in the main journals as follows:
S y = T f − Tb − ( Fyf + Fyb ) (3)
Finally, a FE package (ANSYS) may be used to display the results on the model surface.
The overall process is summarized in the flowchart, Figure 11.

Quasi-static crank CAD/FEA

Mass
and bearing Characteristics PRO E
analysis
Stress/ Crank Throw
Moment Solid Model
Throw Loads and
Stiffness
ANSYS
Cylinder Pressure
Dynamic torsional for torsionals
analysis
Crank/Slider Stress Under Unit
Parameters Load Factors {S},
Nodal Coordinates

Throw Loads corrected

data for result
for torsional dynamics
visualization

Combined Stress
Figure 11: Flow chart of new crank analysis process

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 9 of 13

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

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 10 of 13

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

Figure 12: Variation of Stress along Crankshaft at Specific Locations

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 11 of 13

 Using the sorted principal approach, the maximum stress occurs in the last web where the
maximum bending moment is achieved. With the Von Mises stress approach, however, a more
uniform stress distribution along the crankshaft is observed because the Von Mises stress is more
sensitive to the shear component of the stress tensor.
Comparing stress in the pin and the main fillets, one can see that the pin fillet is more
sensitive to the torsional stress. Therefore, even though in some cases maximum bending stress
may occur in the main fillet, consideration of the combined stress may shift the location of
maximum stress to the pin fillet. For the oil hole, on the other hand, there is no significant
difference between the sorted principal and the Von Mises stress approach. The true stress is
approximately 4 times higher than the nominal stress in the pin journal.
Figure 13 plots the EFR stress (SP) under all loads back on the FE model for several
locations.

Oil
hole

Main
fillet
Pin
fillet

Lightening
pockets

Figure 13: EFR Stress (SP) at several locations on FE Model

4. CONCLUSIONS
• A new procedure for combined stress analysis has been developed. In its current state it
utilizes load factors obtained through crankshaft quasi-static bending analysis and dynamic
torsional analysis, but it could be adapted to accept loads obtained through full crankshaft
dynamic analysis (ADAMS).
• Application of this technique has shown that although the crankshaft fillet stress is
predominantly due to bending, torsional load can add up to 20% to the fillet bending stress,
while the oil hole stress is mostly due to torsion. This validates the traditional analysis at the
preliminary stage of crankshaft design.

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 12 of 13

• The new procedure can be applied to locations other than the fillets or the oil hole, where the
contributions of bending and torsion may be more comparable. Also, it can be applied to a
non-traditional crankshaft configurations such as split pin design.
• The calculation may be carried out for multiple engine conditions in a reasonable amount of
time.
• The procedure may be incorporated into ADAMS/ Engine to allow preliminary crankshaft
analysis to be performed quickly within a common environment.

5. REFERENCES
1. Selim, M. “Main Bearing Loads Calculated with the Crankshaft Carried on Flexible Supports
having non-linear spring Characteristics”, Rapp Inst. Farbrannigmot, NTH, Univ.
Trondheim, No 8, 1972, pp. 1-73.
2. Booker, J. F. “Dynamically loaded Journal Bearings: Mobility Method of Solution”, Trans.
ASME, Journal of Basic Engineering, Series D, Vol.87, No 3, September 1965, pp.537-546.
3. Booker, J. F. “Dynamically loaded Journal Bearings: Numerical application of the Mobility
Method”, Trans. ASME, Journal of Lubrication Technology, Series F, Vol.93, No 1, January
1971, pp. 168-176.
4. Goenka, P. K. “Analytical Curve Fits for Solution Parameters of Dynamically Loaded
Journal Bearings”, Trans. ASME, Journal of Tribology, Vol.106, October 1984, pp. 421-428.
5. Welsh, W. A. and Booker, J. F. “Dynamic Analysis of Engine Bearing System”, 1983 SAE
International Congress, Detroit, MI, 1983, Paper No 830065.
6. Rebbert, M., Lach, R. and Kley, P. “Dynamic Crankshaft Stress Calculation Using a
Combination of MSS and FEA”. FEV.
7. Raub, J. H., Jones, J., Kley, P. and Rebbert, M. “Analytical Investigation of Crankshaft
Dynamics as a Virtual Engine Module”. Proceedings SAE Noise and Vibrations Conference
and Exposition. May 1999.
8. Du, I. “Stress Recovery in Engine and Powertrain Applications Using DADS. LMS 2001
Conference for Physical and Virtual Prototyping. Troy, MI. September 2001.
9. Zwaanenburg, K. “Integration of Physical and Virtual Prototypes”. SAE 2002-01-1290.
10. Rasser, M.W., Resch, T. and Priebsch, H.H. “Enhanced Crankshaft Stress Calculation
Method”. AVL.

2002 North American MDI User Conference Page 13 of 13