- Email: [email protected]
Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr
Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route T. Sathish a,⇑, S. Dinesh Kumar b, S. Karthick c a
SMR East Coast College of Engineering and Technology, Thanjavur 614 612, Tamil Nadu, India St. Peter’s Institute of Higher Education and Research, Avadi, Chennai 600 054, Tamil Nadu, India c Satyam College of Engineering and Technology, Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu, India b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 September 2019 Accepted 17 September 2019 Available online xxxx Keywords: AA2014 Connecting rod ANSYS Deformation Stiffness
a b s t r a c t In general connecting rods are manufactured by using carbon steel; nowadays aluminium alloys are best alternative material to produce connecting rod. Aluminium alloys are less weight and absorb high impact strength since it is best suited for high speed engine in the bike. In this work focused on to analysis of three different aluminium alloy materials as AA2014, AA6061 and AA7075. FEA analysis was carried out through ANSYS software for selected three materials and von misses stress; shear stress and total deformation were obtained from ANSYS software. The analysis on various geometric forms of connecting rod such as solid type, shell type has been carried out using modelling package such as SOLIDWORKS and ANSYS software. The apt result has obtained from the analysis, the deformation and stiffness of each material clearly shows in the output of the analyzed images and also in theoretical calculation. Comparing with the three materials the AA2014 possess less weight and better stiffness. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and Engineering Applications.
1. Introduction In an automobile engine, the connecting rod joins the piston and crank through piston pin [1]. In recent automotive internal combustion engines, the connecting rods are usually made of steel for production engines, but can be made of aluminium [2] (for lightness and the ability to absorb high impact at the expense of durability) or titanium (for a combination of strength and lightness at the expense of affordability) [3] for high performance engines, or of cast iron for applications such as motor scooters [4]. The small end attaches to the piston pin, gudgeon pin (the usual British term) or wrist pin, which is currently most often press fit into the con rod but can swivel in the piston, a ‘‘floating wrist pin” design [5]. The connecting rod is under incredible stress from the reciprocating load stand for by the piston, actually stretching and being compressed with every rotation, and the load increases to the third power with increasing engine speed [6]. Failure of a connecting rod, usually called ‘‘throwing a rod” is one of the most common causes of catastrophic engine failure in cars, regularly putting the
broken rod through the side of the crankcase and thereby rendering the engine irreparable [7]; it can result from fatigue near a physical defect in the rod, lubrication failure in a bearing due to defective maintenance or from failure of the rod bolts from a defect [8], improper tightening, or re-use of already used (stressed) bolts where not recommended [9]. Despite their frequent occurrence on televised competitive automobile events [10], such failures are quite rare on production cars during normal daily driving [11]. This is because production auto parts have a much larger factor of safety, and often more systematic quality control [12]. When building a high performance engine, great attention is paid to the connecting rods, eradicate stress risers by such techniques as grinding the edges of the rod to a smooth radius [13], hot peening to induce compressive surface stresses (to prevent crack initiation) [14], balancing all connecting rod/piston assemblies to the same weight and Magnafluxings to reveal otherwise invisible small cracks which would cause the rod to fail under stress [15]. In addition, great care is taken to torque the con rod bolts to the exact value specified; often these bolts must be replaced rather than reused.
⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Sathish). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139 2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and Engineering Applications.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
2
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2.3. Deformation calculation of the connecting rod
2. Experimental procedure 2.1. Materials
Stress, rt
Aluminium alloys are alloys in which aluminium is the major metal [16]. The typical alloying elements are copper, magnesium, manganese, silicon and zinc [17]. Aluminium alloys are classified as casting alloys and wrought alloys, both of further subdivided into the heat treatable and non-heat-treatable. In this work consider three aluminium alloys like as AA2014, AA6061 and AA7075 [18]. 2.1.1. AA6061 aluminium alloy The aluminium alloy 6061 is a precipitation hardened aluminum alloy, it containing magnesium and silicon as its major alloying elements, initially it is called ‘‘Alloy 61S” [19]. It has good mechanical properties, exhibits good weldability and very commonly extruded, it is one of the most frequent alloys of aluminium for general purpose use [20]. The chemical composition and physical properties of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014 are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
= P/A = 39473/(11 3.2^2) = 350 Mpa
For AA6061 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350*95)/68,900 = 0.4825 mm
For AA7075 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350 * 95)/71,700 = 0.4637 mm
For AA2014 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350 * 95)/72,400 = 0.4592 mm
2.4. Stiffness calculation of the connecting rod 2.1.2. AA7075 aluminium alloy In AA7075 aluminium alloy the zinc as the key alloying element [21]. It is a strong, with strength comparable to many steels and has good fatigue strength and average machinability, but has less resistance to corrosion than many other aluminium alloys [22]. Due to its high strength, low density, thermal properties and its ability to be highly polished, 7075 is widely used in mold tool manufacture [23]. 2.1.3. AA 2014 aluminium alloy The AA2014 aluminium alloy is an aluminium based alloy often used in the aerospace industry [24]. It is easily machined in certain tempers and among the greatest available aluminium alloys as well as having high hardness [25]. However it is difficult to weld as it is subject to cracking. 2014 is the second most popular of the 2000 series aluminium alloys after 2024 alloys [26]. It is commonly extruded and forged [27]. The corrosion resistance of this alloy is particular poor [28]. To compact this, it is often clad with pure aluminium [29]. If unclad 2014 aluminium is to be exposed to the elements, it should be painted as a corrosion protection measure [30].
For AA6061 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1160 N = 0.4825 mm = weight/deformation = 1160/0.4825 =2404 N/mm
For AA7075 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1553 N = 0.4637 mm = weight/deformation = 1553/0.4637 =3349 N/mm
For AA2014 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
=1547 N = 0.4592 mm = weight/deformation = 1547/0.4592 =3369 N/mm
2.2. Specification of the engine and connecting rod 2.5. Modelling and analyzing of connecting rod In this research the 150 cc Suzuki engine was taken to analysis its connecting rod, from the Tables 3 and 4. The specifications of the engine and connecting rod was clearly presented [31].
The connecting rod was measured and the dimensions are modeled through the aid of SOLIDWORKS 2017 software (see Fig. 1.)
Table 1 Chemical composition of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014. Material
Mg
Mn
Cu
Fe
Si
Cr
Zn
Ti
Al
AA6061 AA7075 AA2014
1.10 2.20 0.40
0.15 0.25 1.0
0.35 1.50 4.0
0.70 0.20 0.70
0.80 0.30 0.90
0.30 0.25 0.10
0.25 5.20 0.25
0.15 0.10 0.15
97.2 90 92.5
Table 2 Chemical composition of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014. Material
Ultimate Tensile Strength (Mpa)
Shear Strength (Mpa)
Poisson Ratio
Youngs Modulus (Gpa)
Density (g/cc)
Shear Modulus (Gpa)
AA6061 AA7075 AA2014
290 572 220
186 331 124
0.33 0.33 0.33
68.9 71.7 72.4
2.1 2.81 2.80
26 26.9 26.5
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
3
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx Table 3 Engine specification (150 cc Suzuki engine). Engine type
Air cooled 4-stroke
Bore * Stroke (mm) Displacement Maximum power Maximum torque Compression ratio Density of petrol Temperature
57 * 23.75 149.5 cc 13.8 at the rate of 8500 rpm 13.4 Nm at the rate of 6000 rpm 9.35/1 737.22 kg/m3 288.85 K
Table 4 Specification of connecting rod. S.No
Parameters (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Thickness of the connecting rod (t) = 3.2 Width of the section (B = 4 t) = 12.8 Height of the section (H = 5 t) = 16 Height at the big end = (1.1–1.125) H = 17.6 Height at the small end = 0.9H to 0.75H = 14.4 Inner diameter of the small end = 17.94 Outer diameter of the small end = 31.94 Inner diameter of the big end = 23.88 Outer diameter of the big end = 47.72
Fig. 2. Imported image of the connecting rod.
Fig. 3. Meshing image of connecting rod.
3.2. Stiffness calculation of the connecting rod
Fig. 1. Connecting rod model.
Then modelling of connecting rod is import on ANSYS 15.0 for analyzing the connecting rod as shown in Fig. 2 [32]. Import and generate the connecting rod is activated at various planes and with solid part and solid bodies. Connecting rod imported on XY, YZ and ZX planes. ANSYS meshing is a general purpose, intelligent, automated high performance product [33]. It produces the most appropriate mesh for accurate efficient multi physics solutions as shown in Fig. 3. A mesh well studied for a specific analysis can be generated with a single mouse click for all parts in a model. Full controls over the options used to generate the mesh are available for the expert. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Analyzing and various results of connecting rod The FEA analysis result of static analysis that is von-Mises stress, deformation and shear stress are illustrated in the Fig. 4 (a–f). The results for static structural of three materials were found out and it is tabulated in Table 5.
For AA6061 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness For AA 7075 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness For AA2014 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1160 N = 0.8101 mm = weight/deformation = 1160/0.8101 =1432 N/mm = = = = =
1553 N 0.76762 mm weight/deformation 1553/0.76762 2023 N/mm
=1547 N = 0.66911 mm = weight/deformation = 1547/0.66911 = 2312 N/mm
From the result the AA2014 has less deformation and high stiffness followed by AA7075 andAA6061aluminium materials.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
4
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 4. Deformation Analysis of a) AA6061, b) AA 7075, c) AA 2014, Stress Analysis of d) AA6061, e) AA 7075 and f) AA 2014.
Table 5 Analyzing results of connecting rods. S.No
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Equivalent stress in Mpa Normal stress (x-axis) Mpa Normal stress (y-axis) Mpa Normal stress (z-axis) Mpa Shear stress (xy-plane) Mpa Shear stress (yz-plane) Mpa Shear stress (xz-plane) Mpa Total deformation mm Directional deformation (x-axis) mm Directional deformation (y-axis) mm Directional deformation (z-axis) mm
AA6061
AA7075
AA2014
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
676.840 348.39 704.74 251.01 286.84 219.61 127.3 0.8101 0.25512 0.80762 0.07692
0.49075 390.49 339.17 98.224 286.74 224.42 112.75 0 0.25424 7.3954e-006 0.00809
675.12 346.45 697.48 254 285.24 217.42 129.03 0.76762 0.24416 0.76758 0.01283
0.49152 388.31 337.27 97.68 285.14 225.42 111.56 0 0.24257 7.0727e-006 0.013497
594.71 304.86 614.27 222.51 251 190.86 113.71 0.66911 0.21276 0.66908 0.01119
5.4753 341.69 296.79 85.954 250.91 197.91 98.387 0 0.21141 0 0.0117
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4. Conclusion Modelling and analysis of the connecting rod effectively carried out through Solid works and ANSYS 14 software and the result were concluded the following manner. The weight of the AA2014 aluminium alloy has less compared to other two asAA6061 and AA7075. Deformation can be reduced by changing of materials it proved in the results. AA2014 aluminium alloy connecting rod has high von misses stress, so it has high strength. From three materials the optimized connecting rod is AA2014 since its deformation 0.66911 mm and stiffness 2312 N/mm were good nature other two.
References [1] D. Chandramohan, B. Murali, P. Vasantha-Srinivasan, S. Dinesh Kumar, J. BioTribo-Corros. 5 (2019) 66. [2] G. Mageshwaran, R.B. Durairaj, G. Britto Joseph, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 554–561. [3] K. Gurusami, K. Shanmuga Sundaram, D. Chandramohan, S. Dinesh Kumar, P. Vasantha Srinivasan, T. Sathish, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2019) 1–6. [4] D. Madan, C. Sivakandhan, S. Sagadevan, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 582–590. [5] N.K. Karthickeyan, T. Naresh Kumar, P. Amirthalingam, S. Dinesh Kumar, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Exploring Eng. 8 (2019) 3359–3362. [6] P.V. Senthiil, V.S. Aakash Sirusshti, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 841–852. [7] P.V. Senthiil, V.S. Aakash Sirusshti, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 757–768.
5
[8] R. Venkatesh, V. Vijayan, A. Parthiban, T. Sathish, S. Siva Chandran, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 9 (2018) 922–927. [9] S. Dinesh Kumar, K. Purushothaman, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2018), https://doi. org/10.1080/01430750.2018.1562979. [10] S. Dinesh Kumar, S. Mohamed Haris, R. Mujeebur Rahaman, K. Balamurali, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Exploring Eng. 8 (2019) 3346–3349. [11] S. Karthick, J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 9 (2017) 2679–2690. [12] T. Sathish, A. Muthulakshmanan, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 11 (2018) 39–44. [13] T. Sathish, D. Chandramohan, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 7 (2019) 281–286. [14] T. Sathish, D. Chandramohan, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 7 (2019) 291–293. [15] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, P.V. Senthil, R. Saravanan, FME Trans. 45 (2017) 172– 180. [16] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manage. 26 (2017) 402–419. [17] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, Int. J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng. 15 (2015) 59–67. [18] T. Sathish, K. Muthukumar, B. Palani Kumar, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 8 (2018) 1515–1535. [19] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, D. Chandramohan, N. Nagabhooshanam, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 711–716. [20] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, D. Chandramohan, N. Nagabhooshanam, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 705–710. [21] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 165–178. [22] T. Sathish, V. Mohanavel, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 11 (2018) 31–37. [23] T. Sathish, M.D. Vijayakumar, Krishnan Ayyangar, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14489–14498. [24] T. Sathish, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 10 (2017) 41–50. [25] T. Sathish, J. Mater. Res. Technol. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmrt.2019.07.046. [26] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14489–14498. [27] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 26860–26865. [28] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14416–14422. [29] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14448–14457. [30] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14545–14552. [31] T. Sathish, Prog. Ind. Ecol. 12 (2018) 112–119. [32] V. Mohanavel, S. Suresh Kumar, T. Sathish, K.T. Anand, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 13601–13605. [33] V. Vijayan, A. Parthiban, T. Sathish, S. Siva Chandran, R. Venkatesh, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 9 (2018) 2263–2271.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr
Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route T. Sathish a,⇑, S. Dinesh Kumar b, S. Karthick c a
SMR East Coast College of Engineering and Technology, Thanjavur 614 612, Tamil Nadu, India St. Peter’s Institute of Higher Education and Research, Avadi, Chennai 600 054, Tamil Nadu, India c Satyam College of Engineering and Technology, Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu, India b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 September 2019 Accepted 17 September 2019 Available online xxxx Keywords: AA2014 Connecting rod ANSYS Deformation Stiffness
a b s t r a c t In general connecting rods are manufactured by using carbon steel; nowadays aluminium alloys are best alternative material to produce connecting rod. Aluminium alloys are less weight and absorb high impact strength since it is best suited for high speed engine in the bike. In this work focused on to analysis of three different aluminium alloy materials as AA2014, AA6061 and AA7075. FEA analysis was carried out through ANSYS software for selected three materials and von misses stress; shear stress and total deformation were obtained from ANSYS software. The analysis on various geometric forms of connecting rod such as solid type, shell type has been carried out using modelling package such as SOLIDWORKS and ANSYS software. The apt result has obtained from the analysis, the deformation and stiffness of each material clearly shows in the output of the analyzed images and also in theoretical calculation. Comparing with the three materials the AA2014 possess less weight and better stiffness. Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and Engineering Applications.
1. Introduction In an automobile engine, the connecting rod joins the piston and crank through piston pin [1]. In recent automotive internal combustion engines, the connecting rods are usually made of steel for production engines, but can be made of aluminium [2] (for lightness and the ability to absorb high impact at the expense of durability) or titanium (for a combination of strength and lightness at the expense of affordability) [3] for high performance engines, or of cast iron for applications such as motor scooters [4]. The small end attaches to the piston pin, gudgeon pin (the usual British term) or wrist pin, which is currently most often press fit into the con rod but can swivel in the piston, a ‘‘floating wrist pin” design [5]. The connecting rod is under incredible stress from the reciprocating load stand for by the piston, actually stretching and being compressed with every rotation, and the load increases to the third power with increasing engine speed [6]. Failure of a connecting rod, usually called ‘‘throwing a rod” is one of the most common causes of catastrophic engine failure in cars, regularly putting the
broken rod through the side of the crankcase and thereby rendering the engine irreparable [7]; it can result from fatigue near a physical defect in the rod, lubrication failure in a bearing due to defective maintenance or from failure of the rod bolts from a defect [8], improper tightening, or re-use of already used (stressed) bolts where not recommended [9]. Despite their frequent occurrence on televised competitive automobile events [10], such failures are quite rare on production cars during normal daily driving [11]. This is because production auto parts have a much larger factor of safety, and often more systematic quality control [12]. When building a high performance engine, great attention is paid to the connecting rods, eradicate stress risers by such techniques as grinding the edges of the rod to a smooth radius [13], hot peening to induce compressive surface stresses (to prevent crack initiation) [14], balancing all connecting rod/piston assemblies to the same weight and Magnafluxings to reveal otherwise invisible small cracks which would cause the rod to fail under stress [15]. In addition, great care is taken to torque the con rod bolts to the exact value specified; often these bolts must be replaced rather than reused.
⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Sathish). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139 2214-7853/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Recent Trends in Nanomaterials for Energy, Environmental and Engineering Applications.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
2
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2.3. Deformation calculation of the connecting rod
2. Experimental procedure 2.1. Materials
Stress, rt
Aluminium alloys are alloys in which aluminium is the major metal [16]. The typical alloying elements are copper, magnesium, manganese, silicon and zinc [17]. Aluminium alloys are classified as casting alloys and wrought alloys, both of further subdivided into the heat treatable and non-heat-treatable. In this work consider three aluminium alloys like as AA2014, AA6061 and AA7075 [18]. 2.1.1. AA6061 aluminium alloy The aluminium alloy 6061 is a precipitation hardened aluminum alloy, it containing magnesium and silicon as its major alloying elements, initially it is called ‘‘Alloy 61S” [19]. It has good mechanical properties, exhibits good weldability and very commonly extruded, it is one of the most frequent alloys of aluminium for general purpose use [20]. The chemical composition and physical properties of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014 are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
= P/A = 39473/(11 3.2^2) = 350 Mpa
For AA6061 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350*95)/68,900 = 0.4825 mm
For AA7075 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350 * 95)/71,700 = 0.4637 mm
For AA2014 Deformation, DL
= (rt * L)/E = (350 * 95)/72,400 = 0.4592 mm
2.4. Stiffness calculation of the connecting rod 2.1.2. AA7075 aluminium alloy In AA7075 aluminium alloy the zinc as the key alloying element [21]. It is a strong, with strength comparable to many steels and has good fatigue strength and average machinability, but has less resistance to corrosion than many other aluminium alloys [22]. Due to its high strength, low density, thermal properties and its ability to be highly polished, 7075 is widely used in mold tool manufacture [23]. 2.1.3. AA 2014 aluminium alloy The AA2014 aluminium alloy is an aluminium based alloy often used in the aerospace industry [24]. It is easily machined in certain tempers and among the greatest available aluminium alloys as well as having high hardness [25]. However it is difficult to weld as it is subject to cracking. 2014 is the second most popular of the 2000 series aluminium alloys after 2024 alloys [26]. It is commonly extruded and forged [27]. The corrosion resistance of this alloy is particular poor [28]. To compact this, it is often clad with pure aluminium [29]. If unclad 2014 aluminium is to be exposed to the elements, it should be painted as a corrosion protection measure [30].
For AA6061 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1160 N = 0.4825 mm = weight/deformation = 1160/0.4825 =2404 N/mm
For AA7075 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1553 N = 0.4637 mm = weight/deformation = 1553/0.4637 =3349 N/mm
For AA2014 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
=1547 N = 0.4592 mm = weight/deformation = 1547/0.4592 =3369 N/mm
2.2. Specification of the engine and connecting rod 2.5. Modelling and analyzing of connecting rod In this research the 150 cc Suzuki engine was taken to analysis its connecting rod, from the Tables 3 and 4. The specifications of the engine and connecting rod was clearly presented [31].
The connecting rod was measured and the dimensions are modeled through the aid of SOLIDWORKS 2017 software (see Fig. 1.)
Table 1 Chemical composition of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014. Material
Mg
Mn
Cu
Fe
Si
Cr
Zn
Ti
Al
AA6061 AA7075 AA2014
1.10 2.20 0.40
0.15 0.25 1.0
0.35 1.50 4.0
0.70 0.20 0.70
0.80 0.30 0.90
0.30 0.25 0.10
0.25 5.20 0.25
0.15 0.10 0.15
97.2 90 92.5
Table 2 Chemical composition of AA6061, AA7075 and AA2014. Material
Ultimate Tensile Strength (Mpa)
Shear Strength (Mpa)
Poisson Ratio
Youngs Modulus (Gpa)
Density (g/cc)
Shear Modulus (Gpa)
AA6061 AA7075 AA2014
290 572 220
186 331 124
0.33 0.33 0.33
68.9 71.7 72.4
2.1 2.81 2.80
26 26.9 26.5
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
3
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx Table 3 Engine specification (150 cc Suzuki engine). Engine type
Air cooled 4-stroke
Bore * Stroke (mm) Displacement Maximum power Maximum torque Compression ratio Density of petrol Temperature
57 * 23.75 149.5 cc 13.8 at the rate of 8500 rpm 13.4 Nm at the rate of 6000 rpm 9.35/1 737.22 kg/m3 288.85 K
Table 4 Specification of connecting rod. S.No
Parameters (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Thickness of the connecting rod (t) = 3.2 Width of the section (B = 4 t) = 12.8 Height of the section (H = 5 t) = 16 Height at the big end = (1.1–1.125) H = 17.6 Height at the small end = 0.9H to 0.75H = 14.4 Inner diameter of the small end = 17.94 Outer diameter of the small end = 31.94 Inner diameter of the big end = 23.88 Outer diameter of the big end = 47.72
Fig. 2. Imported image of the connecting rod.
Fig. 3. Meshing image of connecting rod.
3.2. Stiffness calculation of the connecting rod
Fig. 1. Connecting rod model.
Then modelling of connecting rod is import on ANSYS 15.0 for analyzing the connecting rod as shown in Fig. 2 [32]. Import and generate the connecting rod is activated at various planes and with solid part and solid bodies. Connecting rod imported on XY, YZ and ZX planes. ANSYS meshing is a general purpose, intelligent, automated high performance product [33]. It produces the most appropriate mesh for accurate efficient multi physics solutions as shown in Fig. 3. A mesh well studied for a specific analysis can be generated with a single mouse click for all parts in a model. Full controls over the options used to generate the mesh are available for the expert. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Analyzing and various results of connecting rod The FEA analysis result of static analysis that is von-Mises stress, deformation and shear stress are illustrated in the Fig. 4 (a–f). The results for static structural of three materials were found out and it is tabulated in Table 5.
For AA6061 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness For AA 7075 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness For AA2014 Weight of the connecting rod Deformation Stiffness Stiffness
= 1160 N = 0.8101 mm = weight/deformation = 1160/0.8101 =1432 N/mm = = = = =
1553 N 0.76762 mm weight/deformation 1553/0.76762 2023 N/mm
=1547 N = 0.66911 mm = weight/deformation = 1547/0.66911 = 2312 N/mm
From the result the AA2014 has less deformation and high stiffness followed by AA7075 andAA6061aluminium materials.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
4
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 4. Deformation Analysis of a) AA6061, b) AA 7075, c) AA 2014, Stress Analysis of d) AA6061, e) AA 7075 and f) AA 2014.
Table 5 Analyzing results of connecting rods. S.No
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Equivalent stress in Mpa Normal stress (x-axis) Mpa Normal stress (y-axis) Mpa Normal stress (z-axis) Mpa Shear stress (xy-plane) Mpa Shear stress (yz-plane) Mpa Shear stress (xz-plane) Mpa Total deformation mm Directional deformation (x-axis) mm Directional deformation (y-axis) mm Directional deformation (z-axis) mm
AA6061
AA7075
AA2014
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
676.840 348.39 704.74 251.01 286.84 219.61 127.3 0.8101 0.25512 0.80762 0.07692
0.49075 390.49 339.17 98.224 286.74 224.42 112.75 0 0.25424 7.3954e-006 0.00809
675.12 346.45 697.48 254 285.24 217.42 129.03 0.76762 0.24416 0.76758 0.01283
0.49152 388.31 337.27 97.68 285.14 225.42 111.56 0 0.24257 7.0727e-006 0.013497
594.71 304.86 614.27 222.51 251 190.86 113.71 0.66911 0.21276 0.66908 0.01119
5.4753 341.69 296.79 85.954 250.91 197.91 98.387 0 0.21141 0 0.0117
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139
T. Sathish et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4. Conclusion Modelling and analysis of the connecting rod effectively carried out through Solid works and ANSYS 14 software and the result were concluded the following manner. The weight of the AA2014 aluminium alloy has less compared to other two asAA6061 and AA7075. Deformation can be reduced by changing of materials it proved in the results. AA2014 aluminium alloy connecting rod has high von misses stress, so it has high strength. From three materials the optimized connecting rod is AA2014 since its deformation 0.66911 mm and stiffness 2312 N/mm were good nature other two.
References [1] D. Chandramohan, B. Murali, P. Vasantha-Srinivasan, S. Dinesh Kumar, J. BioTribo-Corros. 5 (2019) 66. [2] G. Mageshwaran, R.B. Durairaj, G. Britto Joseph, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 554–561. [3] K. Gurusami, K. Shanmuga Sundaram, D. Chandramohan, S. Dinesh Kumar, P. Vasantha Srinivasan, T. Sathish, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2019) 1–6. [4] D. Madan, C. Sivakandhan, S. Sagadevan, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 582–590. [5] N.K. Karthickeyan, T. Naresh Kumar, P. Amirthalingam, S. Dinesh Kumar, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Exploring Eng. 8 (2019) 3359–3362. [6] P.V. Senthiil, V.S. Aakash Sirusshti, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 841–852. [7] P.V. Senthiil, V.S. Aakash Sirusshti, T. Sathish, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 9 (2019) 757–768.
5
[8] R. Venkatesh, V. Vijayan, A. Parthiban, T. Sathish, S. Siva Chandran, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 9 (2018) 922–927. [9] S. Dinesh Kumar, K. Purushothaman, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2018), https://doi. org/10.1080/01430750.2018.1562979. [10] S. Dinesh Kumar, S. Mohamed Haris, R. Mujeebur Rahaman, K. Balamurali, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Exploring Eng. 8 (2019) 3346–3349. [11] S. Karthick, J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 9 (2017) 2679–2690. [12] T. Sathish, A. Muthulakshmanan, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 11 (2018) 39–44. [13] T. Sathish, D. Chandramohan, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 7 (2019) 281–286. [14] T. Sathish, D. Chandramohan, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 7 (2019) 291–293. [15] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, P.V. Senthil, R. Saravanan, FME Trans. 45 (2017) 172– 180. [16] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manage. 26 (2017) 402–419. [17] T. Sathish, J. Jayaprakash, Int. J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng. 15 (2015) 59–67. [18] T. Sathish, K. Muthukumar, B. Palani Kumar, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 8 (2018) 1515–1535. [19] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, D. Chandramohan, N. Nagabhooshanam, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 711–716. [20] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, D. Chandramohan, N. Nagabhooshanam, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 705–710. [21] T. Sathish, P. Periyasamy, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. (2018) 165–178. [22] T. Sathish, V. Mohanavel, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 11 (2018) 31–37. [23] T. Sathish, M.D. Vijayakumar, Krishnan Ayyangar, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14489–14498. [24] T. Sathish, J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 10 (2017) 41–50. [25] T. Sathish, J. Mater. Res. Technol. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmrt.2019.07.046. [26] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14489–14498. [27] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 26860–26865. [28] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14416–14422. [29] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14448–14457. [30] T. Sathish, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 14545–14552. [31] T. Sathish, Prog. Ind. Ecol. 12 (2018) 112–119. [32] V. Mohanavel, S. Suresh Kumar, T. Sathish, K.T. Anand, Mater. Today: Proc. 5 (2018) 13601–13605. [33] V. Vijayan, A. Parthiban, T. Sathish, S. Siva Chandran, R. Venkatesh, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 9 (2018) 2263–2271.
Please cite this article as: T. Sathish, S. Dinesh Kumar and S. Karthick, Modelling and analysis of different connecting rod material through finite element route, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.139