CHAPTER 2

CONNECTING ROD

2.1 Connecting Rod Design

Before designing a connecting rod, it is essential to understand the different terms and

dimensions of the rod. An illustration of these terms can be seen in Figure 11. Starting from the

top with the small end that connects to the piston via a wrist pin. The small end is usually closed

with a pressed-in bronze bushing. The shank holds the small end and the big end together, and it

requires a specific stiffness to avoid buckling under gas pressure and to not extend during

maximum deceleration. If the piston extends, it will interfere with the valve clearance and

potentially cause engine failure. Most four-stroke engines consist of a single piece crank, which

requires the big end to be split that it can be assembled on to the crankshaft. Other important

design features are the fastener that holds cap to the big end, the bearings, and the lubrication in

the big end.

FIGURE 11. Terms and dimensions of a connecting rod [1].

9
 Connecting rods are typically designed as I-beam or H-beam, depending on applications,

but I-beams are most common for most stock engines as well as performance engines. I-beam

rods have a flat area in the middle of the rod with two perpendicular flanges along the shank.

This design provides a good combination of lightweight and strength. A forged I-beam rod and a

forged H-beam rod are shown in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12. Forged I-beam to the left, and forged and machined H-beam to the right [8].

While the I-beam design can handle a lot of tension force, it is prone to fail if the

compression force is too big. Therefore, the rod manufacturer can alter the flat area of the I-beam

design by machining ridges for extra stiffness. See Figure 13 for an example of how a machined

I-beam improved strength to the flat area.

FIGURE 13. Connecting rod with extra ridges for improved strength [9].

10
 The design of an I-beam rod can be altered to provide enough strength to handle almost

any power, but at the expense of added weight. Using different materials to reduce weight is

discussed later.

The second type of connecting rods, the H-beam, is according to an article in Engine

Builder Magazine [5], typically designed for engines that produce a lot of low rpm torque. This

type of rod usually has two large, flat side beams that are perpendicular to the piston pin and

crankshaft journal bores. The article further discusses that the H-beam rod can handle more

torque with a lighter weight compared to I-beam rods, but due to weak tension parameters, it is

recommended for engines with maximal power output under 6000rpm.

2.2 Connecting Rod Materials

Steel connecting rods, either cast or forged, are most common in production cars due to

low cost, high production rate, and high fatigue life, but when it comes to aftermarket

performance rods, a few different materials are used. The material choice depends on what type

of performance one is interested in. The following section will discuss the most commonly used

materials.

Powder Metal (PM): The PM connecting rods are a forged process, and it is similar to

traditional forging. Traditional forging starts with a precise size of blank, but in powder forging,

the process begins with an accurate amount of powder alloy. Typically, the powder includes iron,

copper, and other agents. The connecting rod is formed in a die under high pressure [10]. A PM

connecting rod can be seen in Figure 14.

The PM rod is the most recent technology, and according to an article in Engine Building

Magazine [2], over 60 percent of late-model connecting rods are powder metal I-beam rods. The

PM rods offer several benefits compared to a conventional produced connecting rod. The PM

11
forged rods can be up to 20% lighter than a similar forged rod while it maintains the same yield

and tensile strength. The PM forged process costs less than connecting rods that are forged from

blanks [2,10].

Another interesting feature in the PM connecting rods is that the big end is fracture-split,

as illustrated in Figure 15. Score marks are embedded on the PM rod during forging, and the cap

is sheared off using a large press. This is possible due to the special alloy used in PM rods. The

splitting lines that fracture splitting creates have a specific pattern, which results in a better cap

alignment and clamping bond in comparison to a machined surface. This also saves production

time by eliminating machining of the surface between connecting rod and cap, but due to the

precise lines, the connecting rod has to be replaced when the big end is out of roundness due to

wear, whereas a traditional machine cap can be re-ground. Howard Cams [2] is the only

aftermarket company that offers performance PM forged connecting rods.

FIGURE 14. PM Forged connecting rod [11].

12
FIGURE 15. Fracture split big end on PM connecting rod [10].

Forged steel: Most aftermarket performance rods are made using 4340 billets or forged

steel. This is a chrome-moly alloy with high tensile and compressive strength. It should be

mentioned, however, that not all 4340 steel alloys are necessarily the same. The heat treatments

can vary, and this will affect the properties of the steel. Some rod manufacturers also tweak the

alloy by adding their own proprietary ingredients to improve strength and fatigue resistance. It is

known among the rod suppliers that the steel of some offshore rod manufacturers doesn’t meet

the American Society of Metals quality standards, although they claim it.

Another material that is used for many high-performance rods is 300M, which is a

modified 4340 steel with silicon and vanadium added, plus higher amounts of carbon and

molybdenum. The 300M alloy is up to 20 percent stronger than common 4340 alloys and was

initially developed for aircraft landing gear. It is now used for high end connecting rods [2].

Titanium (Ti): Connecting rods made of lightweight titanium can reduce the reciprocating

mass of the engine significantly for faster throttle response and higher RPMs, but at the cost of

up to $1000 or more per rod [2]. One of the reasons for the high price of Ti connecting rods is

13
the extensive machining involved in making a rod from a forged blank. A comparison between

the forged blank and a final rod is shown in Figure 16.

FIGURE 16. Forged blank to the left and machined connecting rod from forged blank to
the right [7].

Aluminum (Al): Al connecting rods are popular in the drag racing community due to their

lightweight and strength, but Al has a short fatigue life. Al rods are used in Top Fuel drag racing

with 11000hp V8 engines, but they have to be replaced frequently due to wear. An article in

Engine Builder Magazine [2] describes them as fairly stout and typically much thicker than a

comparable steel I-Beam rod. It is mentioned that the added thickness may require additional

crankcase clearance and leads to increased windage and drag, which at high rpm may cost a few

extra horsepowers to overcome. An aluminum connecting rod is shown in Figure 17, and the

thickness in the big end is especially noticeable. Other disadvantages of Al rods are that they

expand more in high rpm; therefore, additional cylinder head clearance must be taken into

consideration.

FIGURE 17. Aluminum connecting rod [12].

14
 2.3 Finite Element Analysis

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) uses advanced mathematical formulas to analyze physical

phenomena that occur around us. The method predicts the reaction of objects to specific

boundary conditions such as forces, vibration, heat, fluid flow, and other physical effects. The

computed results can give structural guidance on how to design a part and show if and when a

part will break or wear out.

In the procedure, the physical object is split up in many small elements (linear, quadratic,

or cubic nature) where each element is analyzed using a mathematical equation and interpolated

among elements. The collection of elements is called a mesh. The finer the mesh, the more

precise are the results of the analysis [13]. As an example, Figures 18 and 19 are both a

representation of a meshed CAD model of a connecting rod. Figure 18 has an element size of

7.76 mm and 3774 total elements. Figure 19 has an element size of 1.94 mm and 62928 total

elements. The decrease in element size resulted in four times improved tolerance, 0.097 mm vs.

0.388 mm in tolerance. Figure 20 is a computed model of a rod under load and boundary

conditions, showing the stress displaying with a color scheme. The legend to the right explains

the value of each color.

Before FEA software was readily available among engineers, most connecting rods were

designed using the experimental trial and error method. A design was manufactured and then

tested until it broke; material was added to the weak areas, and then tested again. Using FEA

software saves the engineer a lot of time since compression and tension can be analyzed in a

matter of minutes to discover weak areas. Another benefit is that material can be removed where

it is unnecessary based on the color scheme from the stress plot in the software or on

optimization routines.

15
FIGURE 18. Coarse mesh with 3774 elements.

FIGURE 19. Fine mesh with 62928 elements.

16
FIGURE 20. Computed FEA model with color stress distribution.

The design process is repeated until the desired FEA result is obtained. According to

Carley from Engine Builder Magazine [2], a connecting rod manufacturer, by using FEA on their

current rods, allowed them to increase the strength of a rod by 12-15 % with less than a 2 %

increase in overall rod weight. This is an enormous improvement for the racing industry.

17
 CHAPTER 3

TRADITIONAL CONNECTING ROD DESIGN

3.1 Boundary Conditions

A connecting rod from a classic Chevrolet small block V8 was chosen for the analysis of

the initial design parameters. This type is a very common motor which was produced from 1957

to mid-1980 without any significant changes. The engine specifications are listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1. List of Specifications Used for Design Parameters

1957 Chevrolet Small Block V8

Displacement 4.638 liters 283 cubic inch

Max power output 220 hp at 4800 rpm
Stroke 76.200 mm 3.000 inches
Bore 98.425 mm 3.875 inches
Connecting rod length 114.78 mm 5.70 inches

Several parameters have to be determined before the boundary conditions (BC) for the

analysis can be calculated. The following section will discuss how essential parameters are

obtained.

There are three BCs to consider when designing a connecting rod: Tension from inertial

forces, compression from gas forces, and bending due to whipping stress when the piston moves

through its cycle [14,15].

3.1.1 Determine Mass of Connecting Rod

The masses of the small end and big end of the connecting rod had to be determined in

order to calculate the inertia forces acting on the connecting rod. The standard in the industry to

determine the mass of each end is to support one end in the center and place the other end on a

scale, as shown in Figures 21 to 24. It is important that the rod is level. To ensure that the

18
procedure is correct, the mass of both ends should add up to the total weight of the connecting

rod. The recorded masses are listed in Table 2 [16].

FIGURE 21. Small end is supported and mass of big end is determined.

FIGURE 22. Big end is supported and mass of small end is determined.

19
FIGURE 23. Total mass of connecting rod incl. rod bolts.

FIGURE 24. Total mass of connecting rod and piston assembly.

20
TABLE 2. Recorded Connecting Rod Masses and Gas Pressure

Mass of small end of connecting rod 178 grams

Mass of big end of connecting rod incl. bearing and rod bolts 444 grams

Mass of piston assembly incl. wrist pin 1236 grams

Gas cylinder pressure at peak horsepower 62 bar

The second BC is calculated by multiplying the gas force during the compression cycle at

peak horsepower by the area of the piston. The software Engine Analyzer Pro v3.9 from

Performance Trends, Inc. was acquired to obtain the theoretical estimate of the gas pressure in

the Chevrolet V8 engine.

3.1.2 Determine Cylinder Gas Pressure

The software has a built-in design library with a variety of engines. One engine in the

library had similar specifications, but stroke and bore parameters had to be changed, which can

be seen in Figure 25. The performance of the engine was calculated to ensure the peak

horsepower was similar to the Chevrolet engines used for this design. The calculated

performance is listed in Table 3, and as can be seen, the peak horsepower for the simulated

engine is 234.5 hp at 5000 rpm. This is 14.5 hp more and 200 rpm higher than the specifications

for the engine used in this design, but since it was slightly more, it was decided that the gas

pressure would be an acceptable value for the BC.

The cylinder gas pressure was plotted in psi vs. crank degrees and displayed graphically

in Figure 26. As can be seen, the maximal gas pressure is obtained a few degrees after the TDC.

The maximal gas pressures of 820 psi at 5000 rpm was then converted to Newtons to keep the

calculations in metric units, as shown in Figure 27.

21
FIGURE 25. Corrected bore and stroke parameters in Engine Analyzer Pro v3.9 software.

TABLE 3. Calculated Performance for 1957 Chevrolet 283 Cubic Inch V8 Engine in
Engine AnalyzerPro v3.9 Software

22
FIGURE 26. Cylinder pressure in psi vs. crank k degrees at 5000RPM in Engine Analyzer
Pro v3.9.

FIGURE 27: Pressure-Volume diagram degrees at 5000RPM in Engine Analyzer Pro v3.9.

Another useful feature in Engine Pro Analyzer v3.9 is that the piston Gs can be plotted

and used to verify the calculated inertia forces. See Figure 28 for the plotted piston Gs vs rpm.

23
FIGURE 28. Piston Gs vs.RPM from 2000 RPM to 6500 RPM in Engine Analyzer Pro v3.9.

3.1.3 Boundary Conditions Calculations

Two Free Body Diagrams (FBD) (see Figure 29) were constructed in order to visually

understand the various dimensions and angels involved in calculating the boundary conditions.

The second FBD demonstrates the forces and direction of forces acting on the connecting rod.

FIGURE 29. Free Body Diagram of angles and forces impacting on the connecting rod.

24
 Symbol clarification:

r = crank throw (mm)

l = connecting rod length (mm)

ω = angular velocity of crankshaft (rad/sec)

θ = angle of the crankpin from the cylinder centerline

φ = angle of the connecting rod from the cylinder centerline

3.1.4 Boundary Conditions (BC)

BC 1 is calculated at TDC during compression stroke at peak horsepower. This is when

the highest cylinder pressure is accomplished, which in this case, will only be the gas pressure at

peak horsepower [14,15].

The angular velocity of the crankshaft at peak horsepower:

rev 2π rad 1 min rad

4800 ( )( ) = 502.655 (Eq. 1)
min 1 rev 60 sec s

Fgas = Pgas Area of piston

N 0.098425m 2 N
Fgas = (6.2 x 106 2) π ( ) => (6.2 x 106 ) (0.00761m2 ) (Eq. 2)
m 2 m2

Fgas = 47173 N

The boundary condition BC 1 is 47173N in compression at TDC.

BC 2 is calculated during the exhaust stroke when only the inertia forces are acting on the

connecting rod. It is also taken at a higher rpm since engines rev past the peak horsepower. For

this case, it will be calculated at 6500 rpm, which is the max recommended rpm for this engine.

The maximum tensile forces on the connecting rod occur at TDC-Exhaust. Gas pressure forces

can be neglected since they are near zero during valve overlap [14,15].

25
 rev 2π rad 1 min rad
6500 ( )( ) = 680.678
min 1 rev 60 sec s
Equations to solve for the connecting rod forces from inertia:

𝑃𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑟𝜔2 (cos 𝜃 + 𝜆cos 2𝜃 ) (Eq. 3)

where λ is r/l.

From Newton’s second law of motion we can express the inertial force, F reciprocating, created

by the reciprocating piston as a product of the reciprocating mass and the piston acceleration:

Freciprocating total = −(mrec )rω2 (cos θ + λ cos 2θ) (Eq. 4)

where: mrec is the reciprocating part such as piston assembly, wrist pin, and small end of connecting

rod

mrec = Mass of piston assembly incl. wrist pin: 1236g + Mass of small end of connecting rod: 178g

mrec = 1414g
76.2mm
r = Stroke/2 => = 38.1 mm
2

r 38.1
λ is the ratio of crank throw to connecting rod length => => = 0.263
l 144.78

θ is at 0
rad 2
Freciprocating = (1414g)(38.1mm) (680.678 ) cos 0 +
s
rad 2
+(1414g)(38.1mm) (680.678 ) 0.263cos 2 ∗ 0 (Eq. 5)
s

g ∗ mm 1 kg 1m kg m
Freciprocting = 3.1525 x 1010 2
( )( ) => 31525 2
s 1000g 1000mm s

Freciprocating = 31525 N

The boundary condition BC 2 is 31525 N in Tension at TDC.

26
 BC 3: The main beam of the connecting rod is subject to inertial bending forces (rod

whip) as it swings through TDC. For an initial analysis, it is assumed that the connecting rod is a

simply supported beam, subject to a linearly varying distributed load, as shown in Figure 30. [14]

FIGURE 30. Connecting rod illustrated as a simply supported beam with linearly
distributed load [14].

The total bending force due to the triangular distribution is found by using the following

equation:
2
Fbeam = mrod,small end r ω2 (Eq. 6)
3

2 rad2
Fbeam = (178g)(38.1mm) 680.678 (Eq. 7)
3 sec

g ∗ mm 1 kg 1m kg ∗ m
Fbeam = 2.0948 x 109 2
( )( ) = 2094
s 1000g 1000mm s2

Fbeam = 2094N

The bending moment at a distance (x) from the piston pin end of the connecting rod is

described with the following equation [14]:

x x2
M = Fbeam (1 − 2 ) (Eq. 8)
3 l

27
The maximum bending moment occurs at x = L / √3, which simplifies to:

Mmax = Fbeam l 0.1283 (Eq. 9)

Mmax = (2094N)(144.78mm)(0.1283)

Mmax = 38896 N ∗ mm

3.2 CAD Design of Original Connecting Rod

The Chevrolet connecting rod was reverse engineered by using a digital caliper, radius

gauges, and then modeled using the CAD software Solidworks 2018 for further FEA simulation.

The CAD model of the Chevrolet connecting rod is shown in Figure 31.

FIGURE 31. Reverse Engineered Chevrolet connecting rod modeled in Solidworks2018.

28