The Influence of Material Properties to the Stress ...ijens.org/Vol_19_I_06/190606-3737-IJMME-IJENS.pdf · finite element method, the design was made using CATIA V5, and analysis

International Journal of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS Vol:19 No:06 13

190606-3737-IJMME-IJENS © December 2019 IJENS I J E N S

The Influence of Material Properties to the Stress

Distribution on Piston, Connecting Rod and

Crankshaft of Diesel Engine

Muhammad Vendy Hermawan1, Agus Dwi Anggono2*,

Waluyo Adi Siswanto2, Tri Widodo Besar Riyadi2 1) Department of Mechanical Engineering, Akademi Teknologi Warga Surakarta,

Sukoharjo, Indonesia 2) Master Program of Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta,

Jl. A. Pabelan,Kartasura, Sukoharjo, Indonesia *) Correnponding author, [email protected]

Abstract-- This study aims at evaluating stress on piston,

connecting rod, and the crankshaft of the 4-stroke diesel engine

due to compressive and thermal loads. The study applied the

finite element method, the design was made using CATIA V5,

and analysis was carried out in steady-state using ANSYS R15.

Mechanical and thermal compressive loads were applied based

on the actual combustion chamber condition. The focus of this

study was set up by determining the reference points of

observation. The research variable used different types of

material for each component. The piston used alloy cast iron,

AlSi12 CuNiMg Forged and AlSi18 CuNiMg casting.

Connecting rod used AISI 1045 steel, 42CrMo and alloy cast

iron. Crankshaft uses AlSi18 CuNiMg casting, AISI 1045 steel

and alloy cast iron. The study results showed the maximum

stress depending on the material type which had different

properties. Piston experienced thermal and compressive loads

so that maximum stress influenced by the young modulus and

the thermal expansion coefficient of the material. The

maximum piston stress occurred in alloy cast iron material in

the piston pin area. Connecting rod and crankshaft received a

lot of mechanical compressive load, and the young modulus

value was the most influential thing on the stress that occurred.

The connecting rod experienced the highest stress in the big

end area of the 42CrMo material. Crankshaft experienced the

highest stress in the crank journal fillet area on AISI 1045

material.

Index Term-- Stress, Piston, Connecting rod, Crankshaft,

Simulation, Thermal stress

INTRODUCTION

In this global competition era in the automotive

industry, the attempts to develop product quality through research and development need to be carried out

simultaneously. Research and development includes the

development of an important component of a particular

product. The most important part of a car is the engine,

which generally uses combustion motor as a power-

producing component. Crucial components of the

combustion engine are a piston, connecting rod, and

crankshaft. The mechanical characteristic of combustion

motor components should agree to its function so that it can

accede the loads that arise during the engine operation [1].

The automotive industries must be able to respond to the

challenges and security demands regarding their products.

Finding out the feasibility of a certain product can be done

through finite element analysis on the models through the reverse engineering method [2].

A piston is a combustion motor component that serves

to accept the pressure of the combustion results of the

mixture of fuel and gas in the combustor. Then, the pressure

is continued to the crankshaft by connecting rod. The main

purpose of crankshaft is to transmit mechanical power in the

form of translational motion into rotational motion, which is

then used to rotate the transmission shaft of the vehicle.

Materials that can be used to manufacture the combustion

motor component among others are an aluminum alloy, high

alloy steel, cast iron, and titanium [3]. Material 42CrMo

forged steel is better in terms of basic characteristics than 38MnVS6 [4]. The finite element method can be used to

perform the numerical calculation of a model through finite

element analysis. As an example, stress von misses can be

determined from an LSU-5 axle using the finite element

method without performing a complicated manual

calculation [5]. The size of the FE model mesh influences

the predicted results of the finite element model on a

structure [6].

As computer technology develops, recently there is a

lot of software to be used to perform finite element analysis,

one of which is the ANSYS software. As a result, research can be done through simulation and do not necessarily carry

out an experiment that needs an expensive cost.

ANSYS is one of the software for engineering

commonly used in the aircraft industry, automotive and

other industries. Many research studies have been carried

out using this software. In the case of 3D designing, CATIA

software can be used to support research. So, the

collaboration of both software can ease the researcher to

perform finite element analysis simulations [5].

There are several studies on the analysis of stress due

to loads that occur in the piston, connecting rod, and



crankshaft. Since combustion motor works at high

workloads and temperatures, the research must cover the

analysis of static and thermal stress [7]. The peak stress

value is used to determine the value of the component's

safety factor and points which experience critical stress.

Research on thermal stress occurred in aluminum alloy piston with variations in the ceramic coating thickness has

ever been done. Piston surface with a minimum thickness of

0.2 mm experiences maximum von mises stresses around

300 MPa, while on the 1.6mm coating thickness, it

experiences von mises stress of 270 MPa [8].

The study of the crack evaluation on diesel engine

crankshaft concludes that the maximum main stress value of

44.8 MPa occurred in the crankshaft journal crank fillet. The

stress value that occurs in the crankpin fillet only reaches

6% of the yield stress of the crankshaft material which is

445 MPa [9]. The elasticity of the crankshaft affects the stress distribution in the crank journal crankshaft bearing, so

that research on the selection of The crankshaft material

must be used to determine the effect of young modulus on

the elasticity of the material [10]. Connecting rod is a

component that supplies power from piston to crankshaft.

By using the finite element method, a maximum stress value

in the connecting rod is 464.27MPa, found in the connecting

rod bolt hole [11].

Crankshaft for vehicles is generally made of cast iron

or forged steel. Considering the high performance of the

machine, the choice often falls on forged steel because it guarantees high mechanical properties [12]. The most

common piston material used is aluminum alloy. The

addition of alumina fibers can improve the anti-ablative

properties of AlSi aluminum alloy piston materials [13].

An evaluation study of the optimization design on the

crankshaft model must be carried out to plan the mechanical

structure of a good diesel engine. This current study was

conducted by analyzing stress that occurs in three types of

crankshaft designs. The focus of the observation was carried

out at 4 focus points in the crank journal fillet and fillet

crankpin areas, where critical stress occurred. Maximum

stress on a diesel engine connecting rod occured at the big end, with a stress value reaching 139.8 MPa. The study was

conducted by simulating the connecting rod components of

a diesel engine. The 3D model was created by using CATIA

software, while the FEA simulation was carried out using

ANSYS software [14]. Other studies have concluded that

there is maximum critical stress in the crank journal and

crankpin fillet areas [15]. The greatest potential for cracking

occurs in the crank journal fillet area [16].

Research in stress and strain analysis on the 3D model

of a thin-walled aluminum cylinder with the finite element

method has been conducted. The study is carried out to determine the effect of the number of elements and speed on

stress in the buckling simulation process. Buckling

simulation is done with the variations in the number of

elements and different speeds to see the results of stress and

strain. For variations in the number of elements, the highest

stress is found in the model 3260 which is equal to

6.0944x108 Pa. As for speed, the highest stress occurred at a

speed of 75, amounting to 3.8456 x 108 Pa [17].

The safety factor is the ratio between the yield stress

and the actual stress. It is important to know the value of the safety factor in planning a structure. Research on the safety

factor of the use of the AISI E4340 crankshaft is carried out

by observing the critical stress that occurs in the diesel

engine crankshaft with a compression ratio of 1: 16.5.

Observations are made at 4 degrees rotation position of the

crankshaft, namely 200o, 400o, 600o, and 800o. As a result,

the most optimal safety factor is achieved at 3.04 [18]. In a

study of stress prediction on the connecting rod, it is found

that 42CrMo material has the highest strength, toughness

and good hardening properties [19].

This current study aimed at determining the amount of

static and thermal stress occurs at each location on a piston, crankshaft and connecting rod using different types of

material. So, the maximum stress analysis can be done and

the safety factor value can be obtained as a reference for the

feasibility of using the material [20]. The 3D design was

created using CATIA V5 software, and stress value data

were obtained through simulation with ANSYS R15

software. It is expected that the data obtained can be used as

a reference in researching potential damage, the selection of

materials for combustion engine components and as

improvements to the quality of materials in the future.

METHODOLOGY

To find out the stress value, this study used a

numerical method. Finite element analysis was used to

determine resulted stress value. The research model used a

4-stroke diesel engine combustion motor component. The

model was made into a 3D design. The design was made

using CATIA V5 software. Stress analysis was carried out

using ANSYS R15.0. software. The analysis was performed

on each component using different material variations. CAE

parameter input covers material property value, thermal

boundary condition, and static load.

Before doing the simulation, software verification was performed. Verification is a checking process if the

operational logic of a computer model/program matches the

logic of a flowchart. Simply, it checks the error in the

program. Verifying means examining whether a simulated

computer program is running as intended, by checking a

computer program [21]. Validation is whether the abstract

simulation model (as opposed to a computer program) is an

accurate representation of the actual model [22].

Verification was done by running the ANSYS

simulation verification program. Three types of verification

simulations were performed, the first with the VMMECH001 code for static structural. The simulation was

done by assembling three prismatic rods in the axial

direction, then clamping at both ends. Furthermore, subject

to axial loads F1 and F2. F1 was applied to the contact



surface between rods 2 and 3. F2 was applied to the contact

surface between rods 1 and 2. The mesh size was 0.5 inches.

The data being investigated were the maximum stress value

and displacement.

The second verification coded VMMECH005

was applied in steady-state thermal simulation. The simulation model was in the form of two layers of the wall

where The inner wall surface temperature was 3000°F and

the coefficient of surface convection 3.333x10-3

BTU/s.ft2°F. The outside wall had an 80°F ambient

temperature and a 5.556x10-4 BTU/s.ft2°F outer surface

convection coefficient. Thermal stress verification

considered the VMMECH005 verification code by adding a

compressive force of 20000N to the inner surface of the

wall in an axial direction, clamped to the outer wall surface.

The data being investigated were the maximum stress value

3-Dimensional Design The design process was initiated by measuring all

dimensions of the original component. Then, the geometry

data obtained were used to create a design in CATIA V5.

The original component image is shown in figure 1 and the

3D model is shown in figure 2.

a) b)

c)

Fig. 1. Original components a) Piston, b) Connecting rod, c) Crankshaft



a) b)

c)

Fig. 2. 3-Dimensional model a) Piston, c) Connecting rod, c) Crankshaft

This study was conducted by making reference points as the focus of the observation. The next, stress values at each

reference point were recorded and analyzed. The reference point numbering is shown in figure 3.

a) b)

c) Fig. 3. Reference point numbering as the focus of the observation,

a) piston, b) connecting rod, c) crankshaft



Boundary Condition

The boundary conditions consist of thermal

boundary conditions that describe the combustion chamber

temperature and static structural conditions by applying the

compressive forces.

Steady-State Thermal Boundary Condition

Thermal boundary conditions completed by

including temperature conditions in combustion chamber.

Heat transfer occurs by means of convection and

conduction. The expected output is the temperature

distribution that occurs in each test component. The thermal

boundary condition parameters are defined in figure 4 (Cerit

& Coban, 2014).

From connecting rod and crankshaft components, it

is assumed that the thermal boundary conditions refer to the inside part of the piston. The ambient temperature is 110oC

and the coefficient of convection heat transfer is 1500

W/m2oC. Thermal boundary condition is illustrated in figure

4

Fig. 4. Thermal boundary condition, a) Piston, b) connecting rod, c) crankshaft

Static-Structural Boundary Condition

The static-structural boundary condition is performed by including the force parameter that occurs in the combustion

chamber and the location of the fix constraint. The expected output from this simulation is the stress data of each component. The compressive force parameter originated from engine specification data on the manual book as presented in table 1.

Tabel I

4-stroke Diesel Engine Specification

Specification

Engine type 4 inline, 16 Valves, DOHC, D-4D

Cylinder volume (cc) 2494

Diameter x Stroke length (mm) 92.0 x 93.8

Maximum Power (Ps/Rpm) 180/2600

Maximum Torque (Nm/Rpm) 183/4000

Fuel system type Common Rail Type

Fuel Diesel

Steering (Power Steering) with (Electric Power Steering)



From table 1, the maximum force is 180 Ps, which occurred at the rotational speed of 2600 rpm. The required data

are the maximum force that occurred in each cylinder. From the calculation using force and torque basic formula, it is

obtained that the force value is 65141 N or 16200 N for each cylinder.

In the simulation, the application of static boundary conditions is illustrated in figure 5.

Fig. 5. Static structural boundary condition, a) piston, b) connecting rod, c) crankshaft

This current study used variations in the material composition of each component. The difference in the material

type leads to differences in material properties. The piston applied a variety of Aluminum AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting materials,

forged AlSi 12 CuNiMg and cast iron alloys. The connecting rod held a variety of cast iron alloy material, 42CrMo steel, and

AISI 1045 steel. Crankshaft adressed a variety of AISI 1045 steel material, alloy cast iron, and AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting.

The data of the material properties of each material are presented in table 2. Material properties used in this study

taken from Handbook Diesel Engine book [23] and Material Science and Engineering [24].

Table II

Properties of constituent component material

Property Alsi 18

Casting AlSi 12

Forged Cast Iron

Alloy 42 CrMo

Steel AISI 1045

Steel

Density (kg/m³)

2680 2770 7170 7800 7890

Coef. of thermal expansion(x10-

5/ºC)

1.99 1.9 1.098 1.5 1.1

Young modulus(GPa)

68 80 156 210 193

Poisson ratio

0.31 0.33 0.283 0.3 0.269

Tensile yield strength(MPa)

170 280 520 875 515

Thermal conductivity(W/mºC) 143 155 26.6 42 48

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From software verification conducted previously, it

was obtained the error value of thermal simulation was

0.20%, thermal stress simulation 0.38 and static structural

0.24. error value was less than 1%, so the software passed

the verification test.



Stress data were obtained from simulation on a

reference point which became the focus of the observation.

The discussion is presented for each model.

Stress on Piston

Piston stress analysis used three types material

variations, namely alloy cast iron, AlSi 12 CuNiMg forged

Aluminum alloy and AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting. The stress

simulation results are presented in figure 6.

Fig. 6. Results of piston simulation, a) temperature distribution, b) stress distribution

Figure 6.a) shows the piston temperature distribution. Color diffusion occurs in almost all piston bodies. The red

color indicates the area has the highest temperature. It appears that the highest temperature is at the top of the piston and

spreads over the piston surface area. This happens due to the fuel explosion in the area where temperature can reach 700oC. It

can also be seen in the piston body that the temperature gradually decreases. From figure 6.b) in terms of the color contour

distribution, critical stress occurs in the fillet area of the piston surface and the third ring groove. This is because the highest

thermal load is experienced by the upper piston. Thermal loads arise due to high temperatures experienced by the piston.

Critical stress also occurs in the area around the upper piston pinhole. The location is closest to the pedestal area, the piston

pin.

Complete stress value can be seen in the graphic presented in figure 7.



Fig. 7. Graphic of stress in the piston

From figure 7 the maximum stress value in the alloy cast iron material can be seen, which is 173.73 MPa. It is

because the alloy cast iron has the highest young modulus

value when compared to other piston material variations.

Stress caused by thermal load occurs as a result of rising

piston body temperature. The increase in temperature results

in the expansion of the piston volume where the impact is

the expansion of the piston. The magnitude of expansion is

influenced by the value of the thermal expansion coefficient.

The greater the coefficient value, the greater the volume

expansion. The process of volume expansion is limited by

the cylinder wall at the sides and the piston compressive

force at the top of the piston. This phenomenon causes thermal stress on the piston. This is shown in Figure 6, the

critical distribution of stress occurs in the upper surface area

of the piston and the piston wall around the upper piston

ring area where the maximum temperature is in that area.

The maximum stress value and the stress

distribution trend line for the two types of aluminum

material do not differ much. This is because the young

modulus and the thermal coefficient values of the two

materials do not differ much and are still below the alloy cast iron. Thus, the maximum stress that occurs in

aluminum material does not exceed the stress in the alloy

cast iron. The maximum stress of the forged AlSi 12

CuNiMg is 158.56 MPa, and the AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting is

134.1 MPa. The maximum stress value of the three types of

material occurs in the same area, which is reference point

number 10. This area is the upper part of the piston pin hole,

where this part receives a maximum compressive load and

high temperature.

From the data obtained, the AlSi 18 CuNiMg

casting piston material reduces the most stress because it has

the smallest young modulus value

Stress on Connecting Rod

Figure 8 informs that the maximum stress

distribution occurs in the surface area of the big end

connecting rod hole. The effect of applying compressive

force and thermal conditions causes equal stress in the area.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Cast Iron Alloy

AlSi 12 CuNiMg

forged

AlSi 18 CuNiMg

casting

Reference nodes

Str

ess

(MP

a)

173.73 MPa

134.1 MPa

158.56 MPa



Fig. 8. Stress distribution on connecting rod Stress distribution also occurs in the small end area and spreads in the trunk area. High compressive load results in

critical stress in the rod area. However, the highest stress occurs in the big end hole where there is connection with the

pedestal. The stress value trendline can be seen in figure 9.

Fig. 9. The graphic of stress value on connecting rod

Figure 9 shown that the maximum pressure value is

occurred in the inner surface area of the big end hole

(reference points 1,2 and 3). The combination of the

compressive load of the piston and the thermal expansion of

the crank journal crankshaft significantly increases stress in

that area. Stress decreases around the rod and rises again in

the fillet area near the small end hole (8th reference point)

and the small end hole area (9th reference point).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cast iron Alloy

AISI 1045 Steel

42CrMo Steel

Reference nodes

Str

ess

(MP

a)

286.95MPa

356.57MPa

600.33 MPa



The trend line with the highest stress value is

42CrMo material, with a maximum stress value of 600.33

MPa. When compared to the other types of material,

42CrMo has the highest young modulus value of 210 Gpa.

The AISI 1045 steel material which has a young modulus

value of 193 Gpa with a maximum stress value of 356.57 MPa. Alloy cast iron is the material with the lowest stress

value with a young modulus of 156 Gpa, the smallest of the

other materials with a maximum stress of 286.95 MPa.

Among the three material variations, the highest stress

occurs at the 2nd reference point. The area is the location of

the crank journal shaft. These results inform the 2nd

reference point is the stress center. This occurs as a result of

mechanical compressive loads due to the connecting rod's

compressive forces on the crank journal shaft and volume

expansion of thermal loads. Volume expansion in the area is

blocked by the crank journal shaft, this causes thermal

stress. 42CrMo material has the highest thermal expansion

coefficient value among the three material variations.

Stress on Crankshaft

The focus of the observation on the crankshaft is at

the reference point located in the crank journal fillet and

crankpin fillet areas. The simulation model is shown in

figure 10.

Fig. 10. Stress distribution on the crankshaft

Figure 10 shown that the maximum thermal stress distribution occurs in the fillet area of crank journal. The area is

the closest point to the bearingpoint (metal-bearing) which in the simulation is represented by the fix constraints on the crank

journal surface area. The complete stress value on the crankshaft is presented in figure 11.



Fig. 11. The graphic of stress value due to temperature load and pressure on the crankshaft

From Figure 11 it can be seen that the stress value caused by

temperature and the compressive load of the piston occurs at

reference points number 1 and 4. The areas are the crank

journal fillet area and are closest to the pedestal location.

The pedestal, in this case, is a metal bearing as a crank

journal support, and the crankshaft pin is paired with the big end hole on the connecting rod. The piston compressive

force distributed by the connecting rod to the crank journal

of the crankshaft. It causes an increase of stress value in the

crank journal area.

The trend line stress value of the three materials is

the same, the highest stress experienced by the AISI 1045

steel material with a maximum stress value of 244.37 MPa

occurring at the 4th reference point. If it is seen from the

material property data in table 3, the AISI 1045 material has

the highest value of young modulus. Then, in the next

sequence is alloy cast iron material. The material with the

smallest young modulus is AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting. Figure

11 informs that the AISI 1045 steel material has the highest

stress value that occurs at the 4th reference point. Alloy cast

iron material ranks second with a maximum stress value of

192.8 MPa occurring at the 1st reference point. The material with the smallest stress value is Aluminum AlSi CuNiMg

18 casting which has maximum stress of 170.84 MPa occurs

at the 1st reference point. The 1st and 4th reference points are

the crank journal crankshaft fillet area.

The material safety factor is very important to be

taken into consideration in the selection of material. This is

to avoid the failure of the engine. Maximum stress on each

component must not exceed the yield stress limits of each

material. A comparison of safety factors is presented in

table 3.

Table III

Comparison of the safety factor of each component

Component Type of Materials Yield strength

(MPa)

Max. stress

(MPa)

Safety factor

Piston

Cast Iron alloy 520 173.73 2.99

AlSi 12 forged 340 158.56 2.14

AlSi 18 casting 210 134.1 1.57

Connecting rod

Cast iron alloy 520 286.95 1.81

AISI 1045 steel 515 356.57 1.44

42 CrMo steel 875 600.33 1.46

Crankshaft

AlSi 18 casting 170 170.84 0.99

Cast iron alloy 520 192.80 2.70

AISI 1045 steel 515 244.37 2.11

The factors influence the value of the safety factor

are the maximum stress and the yield strength of each

material. Safety factor value is the value of the ratio

between yield strength and the maximum stress. In this

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

1 2 3 4

AlSi 18 CuNiMg

castingCast iron Alloy

AISI 1045 Steel

Reference nodes

Str

ess

(MP

a)

170.84MPa

192.8MPa

244.37MPa



study, it is obtained that the young modulus value is the

most influential factor in stress value. The greater the young

modulus, the higher the stress value. In the case of

structures that only experience mechanical loads, the young

modulus is the only value that influences the stress. But in

the case of stress caused by thermal load, the young modulus value and the thermal expansion coefficient affect

the stress value. The relationship between the coefficient

value of thermal expansion to thermal stress occurred is

comparable.

From table 3 it is known that alloy cast iron

material has the highest safety factor on piston, even though

it has the highest stress value. It is because the alloy cast

iron material has the highest yield strength value of 520

MPa. From figure 12, alloy cast iron has the heaviest mass.

This certainly has a poor impact on engine performance.

The safety factor of AlSi 12 forged is quite high but still

below alloy cast iron. AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting material has the lowest safety factor value. Although the AlSi 18 stress

value is quite low, it has the lowest yield strength with a

relatively light mass. From the results of this study, the

material recommended as a piston material is AlSi 12

CuNiMg forged which has a safety factor of 2.14 and a

relatively light mass.

In terms of the connecting rod components, as

provided in table 4, alloy cast iron material has the highest

safety factor at 1.81. So it is most recommended as a

connecting rod material. Table 4 shown that the yield

strength value of alloy cast iron is 520 MPa and the maximum stress that occurs is only 286.95 MPa. In contrast

to 42CrMo steel material which has the highest yield

strength value, but the maximum stress occurred is the

highest at 600.33 MPa. This results in a safety factor of only

1.46, smaller than the alloy cast iron material. The safety

factor value of AISI 1045 material is 1.44. The maximum

stress is greater than alloy cast iron but yield strength is

smaller than alloy cast iron. However, all materials are still within safe limits.

In the crankshaft, cast iron material has the highest

safety factor, followed by AISI 1045. The highest value of

cast iron yield strength when compared to AISI 1045 steel

and AlSi 18 casting. Even though the highest value of the

maximum cast iron stress, the ratio between the value of

yield strength and the stress that occurs is still higher than

the ratio of yield strength to the stress of AISI 1045 steel

material and AlSi 18 casting. The value of the safety factor

of alloy cast iron and AISI 1045 steel is still within safe

limits because it is more than one. AlSi 18 casting material

has a safety factor of less than one, so it is categorized as unsafe material.

The Discussion of the Mass Component Comparison

In material selection, the mass of the model needs

to be taken into account. Material which is too heavy will

slow down the engine performance. The mass of a

component is affected by the density value of the constituent

material. From the simulation data, the comparison of the

mass of each material is shown in figure 12. Steel and alloy

cast iron materials have a high density which can be seen

from their relatively high mass. Aluminum has a relatively low density, this affects the mass of lighter components.



. Fig. 12. The comparison of mass component

Figure 12 informs that the material with the lightest mass in the piston is the AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting material, 0.362

Kg. The mass of AlSi 12 forged CuNiMg does not differ

much which is equal to 0.374 Kg. Alloy cast iron material

has the heaviest mass. The mass value depends on the

volume and density of the material.

The ratio of connecting rod mass does not have a

significant difference. Of all materials, it only has a

difference of 0.050 Kg. While on the crankshaft, AlSi 18

CuNiMg casting material has the lightest mass of 3,834 Kg,

Alloy cast iron of 10,258 and AISI 1045 of 11,298 Kg.

CONCLUSION

Young modulus value is most influential on the

stress that occurs in components that experience mechanical

compressive loads. The thermal expansion coefficient value

affects the thermal stress that occurs as a result of the

thermal load. The component safety factor is influenced by

the yield strength of its constituent materials.

As a result of thermal and compressive load on the

piston, the young modulus value and the material's thermal

expansion coefficient has the greatest impact on the stresses

in the piston element. The piston analysis results show that

the AlSi 18 CuNiMg casting piston material has the lowest stress with the lowest safety factor value, but still in a safe

category. Forged AlSi 12 CuNiMg material has a relatively

low-stress value and a better safety factor value compared to

AlSi 18. This is because forged AlSi 12 CuNiMg has a low young modulus value, lower expansion coefficient, and

higher yield strength when compared to AlSi CuNiMg

casting. Alloy cast iron material has the best safety factor

value but has the heaviest mass. Thus, AlSi 12 is

recommended as a piston material.

The connecting rod experiences a lot of mechanical

compressive load. The modulus young value influences the

stress the most. The connecting rod analysis shows that the

alloy cast iron material has the lowest stress and the highest

safety factor compared to the other two materials. AISI

1045 steel material has a relatively low-stress value and the lowest safety factor value. 42CrMo steel material has the

highest stress and the lowest safety factor. In terms of mass,

all three materials have almost the same mass. From these

considerations, the alloy cast iron material is the finest when

compared to the other two materials.

The crankshaft continues the compressive force of

the connecting rod, and the mechanical compressive load is

the most dominant cause of the stress. The young modulus

value of the crankshaft material affects the stress that

occurs. Crankshaft analysis shows that the aluminum AlSi

18 CuNiMg casting material has the lowest stress and the

lightest mass, but its safety factor is less than one. Alloy cast iron material has the highest safety factor value. AISI

1045 steel material has the highest stress value but is still

0.362 0.3740.969

0.55 0.605 0.598

3.834

10.258

11.298

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

AlSi

18

casting

AlSi

12

forged

Cast

iron

alloy

Cast

iron

alloy

AISI

1045

steel

42

CrMo

steel

AlSi

18

casting

Cast

iron

alloy

AISI

1045

steel

Piston Connecting rod Crankshaft

Mass

(K

g)



within safe limits. So that, the alloy cast iron material is

more recommended.

REFERENCES [1] P. Citti, A. Giorgetti, and U. Millefanti, “Current challenges in

material choice for high-performance engine crankshaft,” AIAS

2017 International Conference on Stress Analysis, AIAS 2017,

6-9 September 2017, Pisa, Italy., vol. 8, pp. 486–500, 2018.

[2] B. Vijaya Ramnath, Elanchezhian, C. Jeykrishnan, J.

Ragavendar, R. Rakesh, P. K. Dhamodar, J. Sujay

Danasekar, A., “Implementation of Reverse Engineering for

Crankshaft Manufacturing Industry,” Material. Today

Proceeding., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 994–999, 2018.

[3] G. Gopal, L. Suresh Kumar, K. Vijaya Bahskar Reddy, M. Uma

Maheshwara Rao, and G. Srinivasulu, “Analysis of Piston,

Connecting rod and Crank shaft assembly,” Material Today

Proceeding., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 7810–7819, 2017.

[4] D. Niu, J. Zhang, P. Xiong, G. Hao, S. Liu, and W. Guo, “High

temperature fatigue and oxidation characteristics of forged steel

piston materials,” Engineering Failur Analysis., vol. 97, no.

November 2018, pp. 220–226, 2019.

[5] F. A. Wandono, “Permodelan Metode Elemen Hingga untuk

Menentukan Tegangan Von Mises Pada As Roda Lsu-05,”

Seminar Nasional Iptek Penerbangan dan Antariksa XXI, pp.

222–231, 2017.

[6] R. Omar et al., “Investigation of Mesh Size Effect on Dynamic

Behaviour of an Assembled Structure with Bolted Joints using

Finite Element Method,” Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng., vol. 15,

no. 3, pp. 5695–5708, 2018.

[7] Y. Lu, X. Zhang, P. Xiang, and D. Dong, “Analysis of thermal

temperature fields and thermal stress under steady temperature

field of diesel engine piston,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 113, pp.

796–812, 2017.

[8] M. Cerit and M. Coban, “Temperature and thermal stress

analyses of a ceramic-coated aluminum alloy piston used in a

diesel engine,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., vol. 77, pp. 11–18, 2014.

[9] L. Witek, M. Sikora, F. Stachowicz, and T. Trzepiecinski,

“Stress and failure analysis of the crankshaft of diesel engine,”

Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 82, no. October 2016, pp. 703–712, 2017.

[10] H. Karimaei and H. R. Chamani, “Effect of Crankshaft and

Crankcase Material Stiffness on Load Distribution in Main

Bearings,” Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 5941–

5956, 2018.

[11] L. Witek and P. Zelek, “Stress and failure analysis of the

connecting rod of diesel engine,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 97, no.

December 2018, pp. 374–382, 2019.

[12] F. J. Espadafor, J. B. Villanueva, and M. T. García, “Analysis of

a diesel generator crankshaft failure,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 16,

no. 7, pp. 2333–2341, 2009.

[13] Z. Qin, C. Jia, W. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Investigations on

ablation for highly-intensified diesel engine piston material,”

Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 13, no. December 2018, p.

100371, 2019.

[14] H. M. M. Ali and M. Haneef, “Analysis of Fatigue Stresses on

Connecting Rod Subjected to Concentrated Loads At The Big

End,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 2, no. 4–5, pp. 2094–2103,

2015.

[15] M. Fonte, P. Duarte, L. Reis, M. Freitas, and V. Infante,

“Failure mode analysis of two crankshafts of a single cylinder

diesel engine,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 56, pp. 185–193, 2015.

[16] B. Kareem, “Evaluation of failures in mechanical crankshafts of

automobile based on expert opinion,” Case Stud. Eng. Fail.

Anal., vol. 3, pp. 25–33, 2015.

[17] A. D. Anggono and A. N. R. W. Ardianto, “Drop test analysis

of fuselage section of R80 commuter aircraft by using finite

element method,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1831, 2017.

[18] K. Satyanarayana, A. K. Viswanath, T. V. H. Rao, and S. V. U.

M. Rao, “Investigation of the Stresses Induced in Crank Shaft

AISI E4340 Forged Steel,” Procedia Eng., vol. 173, pp. 1672–

1677, 2017.

[19] H. Zhou, S. Liu, G. Li, G. Tian, Z. Wang, and C. Wang,

“Machining Stress Analysis and Deformation Prediction of

Connecting Rod Based on FEM and GRNN,” Iran. J. Sci.

Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2015, 2018.

[20] B. Kareem, “Mechanical failure analysis of automobile

crankshafts under service reconditioned modelling approach,”

Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 80, no. June 2016, pp. 87–101, 2017.

[21] S. Hoover and R. Perry, Simulation: A Problem Solving

Approach, 2nd ed., vol. 1, no. 9. Reading-MA, 1990.

[22] A. . Law and Kelton, W.D., Simulation Modeling and Analysis

Second Edition, Second. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.

[23] K. Mollenhauer and H. Tschoeke, Handbook of Diesel Engine.

Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.

[24] J. D. of M. E. William D. Callister and T. U. of Utah, Materials

Science and Engineering, 7th ed., vol. 7. Utah, United state:

John Wiley & Son, inc, 2007.

Documents

The Influence of Material Properties to the Stress ...ijens.org/Vol_19_I_06/190606-3737-IJMME-IJENS.pdf · finite element method, the design was made using CATIA V5, and analysis