×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Connecting rod design
2

Connecting rod design

Connecting rod design

(OP)
Hi,
I'm looking for a good book on connecting rod design, i.e. forces, fatigue stress, optimisation, etc.  Does anyone know if there are any out there? some guidance would be appreciated

Many thanks,
 

RE: Connecting rod design

What are you making ?

MIT Press, Taylor, "internal combustion engine" I forget whether volume 1 or 2, has a section on con rod design.  It's kind of an industry survey type book, last updated a few decades ago, but has some theory and examples, and usually many bibliographical references.

If you are considering PM (pressed metal) designs the SAE transactions from  the 90s and 00s have a lot to say.

RE: Connecting rod design

Aled87, did you find satisfactory answers to your question? I have been seeking the same information. There are many references available on line, however I have found nothing definitive and authoritative that answers CF Taylor's recommendation found in the volume mentioned by Timoose. Taylor's opinion contradicts standard practice for the highest performance rods by OEMs and is given without support. Yet it is relevant to popular aftermarket designs.

RE: Connecting rod design

Tmoose, do you know of any "authoritative" sources that can resolve questions about aftermarket rod design? To me "authoritative" means other than the ad copy put out by aftermarket rod manufacturers.
All papers I have seen describe the design and verification of standard I-beam rods. It appears no OEMs or serious design houses consider any of the common aftermarket types, like H-beam, X-beam, etc.

RE: Connecting rod design

No authoritative sources known.

Some successful airplanes have been built of wood.  They don't look much like airplanes made of steel tubing or aluminum or XXX

There was a time when there were articles in Machine Design and Hot Rod magazine and all over the place about connecting rods and other engine components made of epoxy/whatever fiber composite materials. Google can only find an occassional dreamy patent for one now.

I bet successful "cutting edge" connecting rods made of steel or titanium could and have been made using H and I beams, and even tubular shanks (old Offenhausers).

I'm not sure the beam choice has one answer, or that we really get to see what is currently in vogue, or even that con rod beam design is being scrutinized as a frontier limiting engine design in any class of racing.

I happened to be in a position to MagnaFlux inspect lots of car and bike connecting rods in the period 1973 thru ~1990.  Some vintage designs, and some genuine race engines derived from production cars-n-bikes and also some purpose built, but not Formula 1.
Cracks (indications!) generally appeared in the transition between beam and wrist pin eye, and especially in the area around bolts at the big end transition. In the rare case when a crack developed in the beam itself, there was always a significant excuse to initiate in the form of a stress riser. Might have been a knick, scratch, stamped number (ouch), filed notch, or once in a great while an original manufacturing flaw like a forging seam or lap.

My conclusion is the beam shape with "best" bending strength should and does lose to the shape that permits the "best" (lowest stress, most manufacturable) transition to pin and big ends.  

In 2000 Ferrari may have chosen an I-beam derivative for reasons of their own.
http://www.arteauto.com/images/products/display/Ferrari_Piston_dec2011_332.jpg

But here's a fairly serious engine (Cosworth TJ V10 ca 2003) with a sort-of H-beam con rod.
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s92/chippievw/General%20motorsport/cossie2.jpg

RE: Connecting rod design

Tmoose except for wooden airplanes what you are saying are some things I've read before. What is the most interesting is the question of stress concentrations and reliability. These are the only factors that appear to argue against I-beam rods.
From what I've read, rod design begins with Euler column theory for pinned columns and works from the pinned column's 4 times the bending moment in the plane of rotation vs the axial plane to arrive at an I-beam with its strong axis toward the plane of rotation. To vary from that (except for hollow beams) would seem to inevitably result in a rod with inferior strength to weight. As you say, there are few racing applications where extra weight in the rod is a critical disadvantage, but F1 is one of those areas. Consequently, you see only I-beam rods in F1 (except that some I-beam rods have been made with H-beam like ribs, including Ferrari rods -later than the one you show, as well as the Cosworth rod you show).
However, in the FEA stress analysis images I have seen, the stress distribution in I-beam rods looks complicated where the big and little ends join the beam. Stress in the same areas in an H-beam rod looks a lot simpler as you might guess from the smooth shape.
I noticed that CF Taylor talks about stress risers as one reason to resort to the H-beam, but none of the aftermarket makers talk about it nor anybody else.
The other popular beam type is the X-beam, which seems to have nothing to recommend it vs the I-beam, but which is probably stronger in the plane of rotation than the H-beam.

RE: Connecting rod design

I think if I asked my connecting rod bearings to restrain the con rod from bowing a little by behaving like a pinned connection with about 0.002" clearance at around 12 noon of the power stroke or either BDC the the bearings would be unhappy with the edge loading. In time they might even look look like this.
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?w=&h=&cache=cache&media=bent_or_twisted_connecting_rod1.png

Modern pistons don't have much skirt and length on the sides, so I wonder how much lateral rod guidance they can offer.

It's a little hard to see how spindly the I-beam is, and how stout the big-end is on stock Honda RSX rods.
http://www.kseriesparts.com/graphics/00000001/HON-13210-PRB-A00-1_665x750.jpg  

RE: Connecting rod design

I also have never seen anything really definitive on either design type and tend to think there is more importance in specific detail than design type. Also the type of application may determine failure mode.

I know first hand the I beams in boosted OEM Honda D series engines tend to bend in compression at around the 220ish hp area. They don't break, just bend.

The same rods when used in a short stroke high rpm NA engine tend to fatigue and break as the failure mode.

I think a lot of favour was placed with H beams with the advent of the Carrillo brand rods which became very famous for increased durability at much higher loads than OEM rods. Initially virtually all serious after market racing duty rods where Carrillo or Carrillo copies and it was widely believed that the H beam design was the reason for their superiority where in fact it was more just extra metal where required, precision of manufacture and the use of superior materials and treatments.

I was always of the unsubstantiated belief that the reason Carrillo chose H beam and OEM chose I beam is that in the day and age, I beam suited manufacture by forging and H beam suited manufacture by milling and that rather than strength or durability inherent in either design was the reasons behind the different choices.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Connecting rod design

Tmoose, what you say about the lateral stability is very instructive. The I-beam rod is by far at its weakest in the axial plane, yet stock rods are never made as thick as the space would allow. Also, piston skirts could be circumferential, but usually are not. Both these facts tell us that the axial loading is light. And, if more strength and less loading are wanted, the rod could easily be twice as thick and a full circumference band can be added to the piston. Generally, what I have seen of I-beam rods is that if they are strong enough in the plane of rotation, they are extra strong in the axial plane. In fact, though the bending moment in the plane of rotation is 4 times as great for the static condition, the custom is to make the rod only 1/3 as strong (rather than 1/4th) in the axial plane to give an extra margin of strength there since you would prefer the rod to buckle last in a way that it would contact a crank cheek. The spindly proportions of current highly optimized rods is evidence of the state of design, using much less rod for the same margin of performance.

RE: Connecting rod design

patprimmer, your opinions here are what I have heard and they make a lot of sense.
I also suspect that Fred Carrillo believed the H-beam form was more trouble free as a design compared to the complexity of the I-beam. All one had to do was to look at the wide variety of I-beam designs to realize that the engineering was ambiguous. Carrillo made a rod that was much stronger than OEM rods and was of superb quality. I believe the H-beam's reputation was made by this and its inherent freedom from fatigue failure associated with stress risers. This last point, reliability, is essential.
H-beam rods are probably a safer choice for racers except when compared only to I-beam rods from the very top makers, like Pankl and Carrillo themselves or the OEMs when they offer a truly strong rod.
In fact, it is telling to see that Carrillo recommends their light I-beam rods (called A-beam, a marketing name) for high RPM applications where weight is critical. One would expect they would sell you a light weight H-beam, but by recommending the I-beam they are confirming that the I-beam is stronger by weight.

RE: Connecting rod design

I have personally never ever seen an overhead crane use an H beam.

http://www.inamar.cl/ingles/e_levante.html

The problem I see is, you never seem to see an I beam rod, formed similar to the H beam rod, that is viewing it from front or back inline with the crankshaft centerline. The I beam rods are always much narrower than an H beam rod. If designed correctly the I beam rod is much stronger than an H beam rod.  

RE: Connecting rod design

Personally I never saw an overhead crane being used to connect a piston to a crank so what's the point.

Where rod choice is free, one heck of a lot of high budget endurance races have been won with H beam rods

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Connecting rod design

patprimmer, the use of H-beams in high buck racing is undeniable. It is this fact that makes this discussion interesting. I think the analysis from principles, without doubt, favors the I-beam and that this is born out by the F1 example and the OEM preference where the OEMs design expensive, fully machined rods for their racing engines (not their cheap, as-forged rods). But the aftermarket racing fraternity regards H-beams very highly.
For OEMs using H-beam rods, I know of two examples. Ford bought an off-the-shelf Crower H-beam rod for one of their turbo engines a few years back. Audi used an H-beam rod in their recent (low rpm) turbo-diesel LMP car. This rod is steel with a steel piston. Also, the piston lacks a skirt section in the axial direction.
Furthermore, H-beam rods were once common in F1 before the extreme RPM era. According to Ilmore's Mario Illian, the perfection of pneumatic valve springs around 1994 took valves out of the equation as an rpm limiter in F1 and made pistons (and rods) the the power limiting parts. According to BMW's Dr. Theissen, H-beams are "...much too heavy...", so the preference has been for "...I rather than H...", according to Illian.
But, in classes of racing where metal valve springs are used, the weight of H-beam rods is less critical and their virtues are either known or reputed. Which is it, known or only reputed? That is what I'd like to know.

RE: Connecting rod design

140

I agree, however I disagree that a crane is a good comparison and that I beams are much stronger. A bit stronger sure, but much stronger as a blank statement with zero supporting data, give me a break.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
 

RE: Connecting rod design

patprimmer, I don't think I-beam rods are "much" stronger for the weight since the beam portion of the rod is not the majority of the weight. I don't know what extra weight of H-beam rod is needed to match the buckling strength of a particular I-beam rod. You can do a calculation of the area moments in the direction of the plane of rotation for equal total areas and the same section outline. I think the I-beam may show 50-80% better area moment. Could be less. The heavier both beams are, the more they converge toward a solid beam. What that would mean for the extra weight of the whole H-beam rod I don't know, maybe 20%? That may be a lot for F1, but not so much otherwise. Another factor is that the extra section mass the H-beam needs lowers its stretch at TDC, lessening fatigue and increasing its reliability. So, the extra weight is not a total liability, so long as the crank and block are up to it.

RE: Connecting rod design

Just my two cents...I never used Carillo until recently in our newest engine.  I found them "interesting" in appearance and a bit on the heavy side compared to the Cosworth rods that I have used for many years.  In fact, quite a bit heavier.  As to reliability...well, come on guys, racing is rather stressful on even the best parts and after all, parts is parts.  I've had Cosworths fail and I suspect there has been the occasional failure in the H beam Carillos.  Matters not, since the light Cosworths are not available these days (and probably unaffordable, anyway) I have been trying other options.  Currently I am using a set of Pauter "X" beam rods.  One thing that has come up in two engines is the designed in "crush" of the bearing shells.  On both cranks it was necessary to polish out an additional 0.001" clearance than when using Cosworth or Carillo (or stock, for that matter).  This link is just to show the rod and not any engine I build.

http://www.pauter.com/acura_honda.htm

No failures in either rod type so far.  The Carillo rods are in an engine developing 0.13+ hp/cc at 9500 rpm and the Pauter are in a smaller engine @ 0.10+ hp/cc and 8000 rpm.  Apples and oranges...vintage race engines, not F1---

Rod

RE: Connecting rod design

BrianGar, That article and marketing claims by several aftermarket manufacturers are offered with no engineering justification whatsoever. This has been the problem in trying to understand the viability of H-beam and X-beam rods in the face of column theory. The claims would be laughable were it not for the success these alternative rod designs have had in racing. That success deserves a lot of consideration. In the real world, it is often the case that a design that is inferior to first order calculation can be preferred due to secondary effects. I come to the tentative conclusion that H-beam rods excel in reliability, a secondary effect that might be the primary quality in racing.
As far as ANY alternative design compares to conventional "stock" rods, if they are heavy enough and made of 4340 or some other superior steel, they can be stronger than the stock parts. I note that Pauter X-beams tend to be the heaviest of all rods which could be taken to infer they are the weakest DESIGN. Ironically, engine builders often measure the stiffness of a rod in stretch and crush apparently not understanding that they may be measuring ONLY the average quantity of material in the rod's cross section (proportional to its weight) and not the merit of the design. They don't test the rod to buckling in the proper pinned column fixture.

RE: Connecting rod design

Jeez, its not my day on here today. I stated light reading. If you want heavy, Ill give you more than you want.
What sort of environment do you want them in just so that Ill know whether to go to S for steam trains, or H for high performance.

It all depends as you know. I tend to sit near the F1 end of things.

For me, H beams will always win, one major point is the support they offer around the big end - and how that helps to keep it round under extremes. The H beam surface area does tend to be higher(oil weight) but, the over-all mass about the big end is lower than others while offering better big end bore support.  

Brian.

RE: Connecting rod design

"if they are heavy enough and made of 4340 or some other superior steel......"

Back in the 70s Chevrolet produced a semi-finished rod ( K rod) based on the big block forging for small block endurance racing purposes. It's bulk required a lot of clearancing to miss engine innards. It was made of some mundane 104X steel I think.  Good Geometry can trump exotic materials. Even exotic materials can not compensate for a botched design or manufacturing details in a cool looking design.

Seems like modern rods recognize the "footprint" around the rod bolts at the parting face needs to be  big to make the bolts' life less bendy, and the housing bore needs to be bulky in the right way to keep the hole round at high rpm if the bearings are to survive.  Checking off I/H/X on the Design sheet does not go far  accounting for that.

In street use Harley big twin forked rods were almost certain to slowly develop cracks inches away from the I-beam, where the thickened rib meets the side panels where the races are located. http://www.indianpartseurope.com/xlrodkit.jpg

Some subtle re-shaping combined with shot-peening pretty much  eliminated the problem.

RE: Connecting rod design

briangar, good point about the big ends on H-beam rods. The natural design of big end on an H-beam rod gets rid of the through bolts and the troublesome notch that were standard. Also, the ribs coming down from the beam tend to surround the bolt hole, another good point. I think the overall shape of the H-beam leads to the best shape for a big end and it is now the common shape for the best I-beam rods as well.
Steam engines and F1 use I-beam rods. It's the in-between racing applications where there is disagreement.

Tmoose, the forked rod looks like the hardest rod to design and avoid stress risers. I like this solution by Daimler-Benz: <http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2010/Images/KDM/Hazy/0246DBconrod.jpg>
You can see that rather than have a fork, they split the I-beam in half and kept them separate right up to the piston pin. What is not seen is the webbing that joins the I-beam halves, turning the cross section into an H with feet. Don't know if this DB601 rod inspired Taylor at Wright Aero to try an H-beam master rod after the war, but it might have.

RE: Connecting rod design

The next problem lies in what you call an I beam, or H beam. I can think of many rods that I would call in-between - what exactly differentiates one from another in design terms anyway?

The general feeling I have about both, and I have studied them lots, is depending on how much time and money you spend on either I or H the better that rod will be. There is no superior one as such.
I feel that many of the big names have just spent more time with one design and have taken them to the limits, for them to change now would involve starting over - more money.
I think you'll also find it hard to see an I beam in any current F1 engine now, but I could be wrong.

Below are what I call in-between rods - when you have them in your hand its even harder to decide,

http://store.ferrari.com/en/collectibles/memorabilia/f1-car-parts/original-f1-piston-with-connecting-rod-mounted-on-a-carbon-fibre-base.html

http://store.ferrari.com/en/collectibles/memorabilia/f1-car-parts/conrod-and-piston-from-the-ferrari-f1.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/auto123/4427262335/



Brian.

RE: Connecting rod design

BrianGar, I think the most basic definition of an I-beam as an engineering element is exactly the same as an H-beam. It is a beam that has two flanges separated and connected by a web. The strength of the beam against bending comes from the separation of the flanges and is asymmetrical, when the proportions are like an I, being stronger along the direction of the web. The I-beam rod aligns the web with the plane of rotation where the bending moment is likewise asymmetrical, being 4 x greater in the plane of rotation than it is in the plane of the pin axis at zero rpm. The H-beam rod has the web turned 90 degrees to align with the pin axis and the separation of the flanges is minimal. The H-beam then has the flanges elongated to gain area moment and strength in the plane of rotation.

To assign a type to a rod with characteristics of both types, look at the web and flanges. The Ferrari rod you show is an I-beam rod with its web aligned with the plane of rotation, but with small ribs along the edges of the flanges. This Cosworth rod (from Tmoose) is more ambiguous: http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s92/chippievw/General%20motorsport/cossie2.jpg, but just look at the web of the rod. It's an I-beam with even more pronounced ribs. ALL F1 rods are I-beam rods because F1 engines run in an rpm range where they can no longer afford the extra weight the H-beam requires to match the strength of an I-beam. I elaborated on this in an earlier post. See above.
I believe that the H-beam rod excels at distributing stress throughout the rod while the I-beam requires more careful design to avoid stress concentrations.

RE: Connecting rod design

I think its pulling at straws to call the cosworth/pankl rod an I beam to be honest. I know very well what these rods are like in cross-section(thats one of my pictures above).

Brian.

RE: Connecting rod design

RE: Connecting rod design

BrianGar, I have read these discussions before in researching this topic. I rely a lot on the papers describing connecting rod design. I have not found anything so far, including these discussions, that describes any theoretical support for the H-beam rod except the brief mention by Charles Fayette Taylor. It would help if you could point out any particular post in the discussions you reference that you feel is definitive on the point.

I characterize the Cosworth rod and any rod by the distribution of of mass. The I-beam/H-beam separates mass into flanges connected by a thin web. Ideally, the flanges contain most of the mass and the web contains the minimum amount of mass possible. It is THIN. The H-beam rod web is a thin span running straight down the middle of the rod when viewed flat. The I-beam's web is a thin span running down the middle of the rod when viewed from the edge. The Cosworth rod has a web in two parts, under the piston pin eye and above the crank pin eye, that fits the I-beam description. There are features in the Cosworth rod and some other F1 I-beams that are H-beamish. Also, the Cosworth rod is the most solid I've seen. I already mentioned that the strongest I-beam rods have big ends that were originally more typical of H-beams. Also, the Ferrari I-beam rod has ribs along the edges of its flanges (BTW, do you think it is an H-beam?). There are more pictures of recent F1 rods out there, -ALL I-beams.
In this SAE paper by Mario Illien of Ilmore-Mercedes he makes it clear that Ilmore doesn't use H-beam rods in F1 (I think they do use them in other areas): <http://www.jautomobiles.co.jp/SAE2002-01-3359_HA.pdf>. Note that this paper usually costs money to see, but is free at this site. Illien does not describe the critical pistons and rods except to say that the pistons are the driver of the design and the rods are "...I rather than H...".

Illien's words are no surprise in view of Euler column theory (check out column theory for pinned columns). Also, column theory is for the static case, zero rpm. As rpms increase, additional inertial forces come into play that increase the bending moments in the plane of rotation and makes the I-beam even more preferred. The universal use of I-beams for connecting rods makes all the sense in the world... or maybe not.
The beam portion of short rods is less than 1/2 the rod's mass and the transitions from the I-beam to the pin eyes are areas of stress concentrations and differing opinions by designers. The FEA stress analysis I have seen all show the H-beam to be a more stress-free shape. I conclude that the justification for H-beam rods lies in the way the rod actually performs with respect to durability (in applications that can tolerate some extra weight) and not in column theory or strength-to-weight.
I am looking for more and especially differing analysis.

RE: Connecting rod design

FWIW... Less of an engineering and more of a practical over abuse point of view: My dyno guy does lot of nitrous motors with high cylinder pressures. His rule of thumb recommendation based on broken parts is preferably full round skirt pistons and I-beam rod, at least one or the other. He has sideways bent H-beams used as wall decoration. Sideways meaning toward the unsupported side of slipper skirt piston. He said they failed when spraying ~500hp, which may be a little theoretical in many cases.

RE: Connecting rod design

Calypso, very interesting info. I also think a full round skirt is called for in high boost or nitrous situation. Don't know if I understand about the H-beams bending sideways. I expect them to bend in the plane of rotation with the flanges wavy, if that is sideways. They look extremely strong the other way, the flat way.

RE: Connecting rod design

The advantage of a full round skirt is that it dissipates hat better and spreads cylinder wall loads a bit better. Really important features in a very high cylinder pressure application.

However I really don't see it influencing rod bending and actually strains bolts and big end bore more due to increased weight.

A heavier piston shifts the favour more toward the H beam as they typically support the big end better and reduce stress concentrations near the bolt holes,

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules

RE: Connecting rod design

Okay, enough about these piddly little Carillo rods. Now THIS is what I call an engine. 108,000+ hp at 102 rpm.

http://www.emma-maersk.com/engine/Wartsila_Sulzer_RTA96-C.htm

I've worked on some big engines, but nothing with a 38" bore and 92" stroke. Awesome.

Rod

RE: Connecting rod design

Interesting. I guess Doug needs to do some more work. In order to see the link, you must highlight the url and click "open link". Then it opens fine.

Rod

RE: Connecting rod design

Pat, I agree that the extra weight is not good, but the concern was about out of column forces, which occurs when the piston has no stability along the pin axis. Ordinarily, the rod can take whatever side loads exist, but Taylor cited this in recommending the extra strength along the pin axis of the H-beam. A boosted engine and/or one experiencing detonation would tax the rod worst. A full-round skirt should take all out-of-column compressive loads off the rod. The question would arise, which increases reciprocating weight the most, a heavier rod or a piston with added skirt area? I notice that Top Fuel and other top drag racing classes seem to use full-round-skirted pistons. F1 does not.

RE: Connecting rod design

I certainly agree that cars like blown alky or nitro or nitrous benefit from full round skirts. I always put it down to heat dissipation.

My point was that the desirable full round skirt weighs more. This extra weight comes into play over TDC and stretches bolts more and pulls big ends into an oval shape more. H beams better resist that.

Top fuel uses aluminium rods anyway so the point becomes mute as aluminium rods are almost a solid rectangle beam.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules

RE: Connecting rod design

I have done some 3D modelling and FEA comparing H, I and X rods and can say this generally.

For the same peak tensile stress under tensile load the I-Beam is a lighter more effiecint design by a noticeable amount. This mean if you want to avoid peak stress for fatigue an I-Beam is better due to the stress concentrations being lower. For high rpm repeated tensile applications not involving complete overload (yield) the I-Beam will be lighter and therefore better suited.

For the same mass both an H and X have more beam CSA which means ultimate strnegth driven by plastic crippling will be higher than an I. So the I has lower peak stress but global stresses in beam are higher.

I would say the X-beam is suited for extreme tensile loads where you wont see too many cycles

Assuming rods of same mass when you use Euler buckling of the I-Beam about its best axis the force levels seem to be high enough that the beam would have gone plastic so elastic buckling is not a big concern . For the weak axis the end conditions are not pinned and so the same applies for the rods it wont be elastic that i looked at. The same can be said for H-beam while its strong axis is less strong it seems plenty and its weak axis is stronger than the I weak axis. For the X-Beam about its strong axis is much same as H-Beam about its axis and about its weak axis is much same as I-beam about its weak axis,

When comparing rods it is quite hard to speak generally but i think what i have mentioned is a pretty good comparison. To go further one would need specific geometry, application and loading to compare.


RE: Connecting rod design

inline6, This statement puzzles me.
"For the same mass both an H and X have more beam CSA which means ultimate strnegth driven by plastic crippling will be higher than an I. So the I has lower peak stress but global stresses in beam are higher."

Assumptions I have used are that when machined from solid forging, the contours of the big and little ends would be the same for all types. The only difference would be the shapes of the beam and the transition regions. I also assumed either the beam cross sectional area (CSA) must be identical in all types for the same tensile strength OR the bending strength in the rotational plane must be identical for the same buckling resistance. Then the comparison would be the strength to weight ratios.
When you say the H and X have more CSA at a given weight you imply that the parts of the rods other than the beams are heavier in the I design. If the ends are identical, then the differences would have to be in the transition regions. Is that what you mean?

Also, an unfortunate fact is that I-beam rods vary quite a bit in the transition regions with some much heavier than others in those areas. Did you model a particular I-beam rod?

Lastly, did you make any comparison in the torsional stiffness? This factor escapes my simple analysis beyond noting that the I has the highest overall area moment while it appears the X has the lowest. But, I believe details of the structures should come into play, like the length/thickness of the web in the cross section and the filet radii.

RE: Connecting rod design

Open sections like Is, Hs, and Xs rely on the thickness of the webs and flanges.
http://weldingdesign.com/blodgett/wdf_79843/
http://weldingmag.com/images/archive/79843dont5jpg_00000052332.jpg

If for some reason you want great torsional stiffness, "boxed rods" may be the way to go.
They were used in various hot-rodded car and bike engine decades ago.
Fuel burning harley dragsters needed some help in regards rod buckling, and boxing DID offer some relief

half way down the pager here, right hand example hard to see.
http://midstateantiquestockcarclub.com/flat_heads6.html

http://image.carcraft.com/f/editorials/boxed-connecting-rods-antique-engine-tech/31910310/no-subject.jpg

I'd consider Welding on a con rod anywhere, but especially at the transitions, a really bad idea.

RE: Connecting rod design

Tmoose, these are excellent references that I had not seen before. Thanks.
Yes, boxing was used before there were so many good aftermarket pieces. And, a boxed or oval section is indeed much better in torsion than an open section. Twist is important because it appears to sometimes be a factor in the buckling process. A column with asymmetric strength can fail prematurely if twisting can partially expose the weaker direction to the bending load. The I-beam is the most asymmetric of the three we were discussing.

inline6, what you say about the X-beam being like the H-beam in the strong direction (weaker than the I-beam) and like the I-beam in the weak direction (weaker than the H-beam) is what I expected. This follows if you look at the concentration of mass in the X-beam straight down the center of the rod where, except for tensile strength, it is dead weight. It therefore is the weakest design of the three for the weight, ...except that I believe an X-beam is actually stronger ultimately than the H-beam in the strong direction because, IMHO, its thick blade is not subject to the flange buckling of the two thin H-beam blades.
Your analysis is very helpful.

RE: Connecting rod design

140AirPower when i used the same big end and small end with same outer profile for the same mass the I-Beam had slightly thinner flanges and web and thus a slightly smaller cross section at the narowest point. The reason is as you say the added mass in the transition regions of the I. This is also why the stress concentrations are lower in this areas. If i adjusted the I-beam web and flange thickness to the same CSA as H-beam it worked out about ~25g heavier in a 600ish gram rod which is merely a few %


with further development i think i could design an I-Beam rod to have the same min CSA in the beam area for the same mass which would mean the I's would have it.

It is quite difficult to compare them you could do

1) Same mass what is the strength comparison
2) Same strength what is the mass comparison

but what does stength mean? fatigue, bending, axial, proof load, gross collapse, fracture........)

but the most noticeable thing that came out was the I-Beam transition was far superior than the other two which is import in tension. I did not look at doing a pin contact analysis to see whther the loads are carried closer to the edge of the bearing i used a sinusoid pressure around a suitable arc uniform through thickness

RE: Connecting rod design

inline6, and how does an I beam compair if it uses the same for and aft profile that an H has?
That is for or aft installed in an engine. I beam rods are most always a smaller profile than an H. Lighter yet stronger as well.

RE: Connecting rod design

dicer, I agree that the H-beam rods I've seen tend to be wider in plan form than any I-beams. This is probably necessary to make up for the low area moment of inertia (MOI or 2nd moment of inertia) of the H form compared to the I form with respect to the plane of rotation where the main bending moment exists. The other expedient for increasing strength in the plane of rotation is to increase the section -the amount of material and the weight. So, an H-beam will be heavier than an I-beam for the same strength in the plane of rotation. However, inline6 pointed out that the H-beam is lighter than the I-beam for the same strength in tension.
The H-beam rod obviously has other advantages not explained in this analysis otherwise it would not be the preferred design in so many areas of racing. From what I have read, it is only in F1 where H-beams are definitely not considered suitable.

RE: Connecting rod design

If you look at F1 rods, they are neither true "I" or "H" beam. They are a complex composite design that requires considerably more machining. F1 budgets allow for a considerable cost for a small weight saving.

I still think the initial popularity with "H" beams was relative simplicity of machining from billet at the time they became popular.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules

RE: Connecting rod design

Pat, I think that Fred Carrillo actually believed in the H-beam configuration. True, it is the cheapest shape to machine from billet or from a forged blank, assuming it is required that the rod be fully machined. I suspect he was influenced by Taylor's observation that the H-beam is inherently stress-free compared to an I-beam. It meant Carrillo could make the most reliable rods. A big advantage was that the kind of big-end you would want to use with the H-beam was naturally stronger than the way most rod big ends were being made.
I think that serendipitously they learned that the disadvantage of the H-beam (being not as strong as an I-beam) was not so important in practice. In any case, H-beam rods have been popular in high buck racing except for F1 since the days of the extreme rpm challenge.

BTW, although some F1 rods are weird, others are straightforward I-beams with added reinforcing ribs between the big-end bearing eye and the beam flanges. Back in the '80s, when rpms were not much higher than 12,000, many F1 engines used H-beam rods.

RE: Connecting rod design

When it comes to current F1 engine design the only "what" I have access to is on the Internet. Not much incentive for a manufacturer to reveal all, or even very much there.
Even if I really knew "what" this year's F1 con rod looks like, I'm not real confident in my speculative powers about the "why" behind the design decisions without input from the designers. And even then, I'd want to compare their techno-confessions made when sober, drunk, and under the influence of truth serums.

Suzuki GSX R600 has been rated max power at 13,500 rpm or so for a few years.
At Suzuki.com Suzuki says this "The GSX-R600 engine revs to 15,500 rpm, the highest figure among production Suzuki bikes, and similar to racing machines."
http://www.suzukimotorcycles.com.au/bikes/road/sup...
They come with a 12 month limited warrantee.
Their rods reportedly look like this.
http://static.zigwheels.com/media/content/2011/Mar...

RE: Connecting rod design

Tmoose, we have pictures of rods from the 17,000 - 20,000 rpm V10 era which show what worked then. Knowing F1, you are right that they would not have stopped development even with a 18,000 rpm limit, so today's rods could be different. However, the most recent photos we have are still valid for this rpm range. The discarding of the earlier H-beam and the comments of the F1 engine designers about not using H-beams are very instructive.

The Suzuki shows what can be done with steel valve springs. The rods look like "ordinary" I-beams.
The main bearings look small for lower friction, but looks like there is little pin overlap. This is an F1 characteristic.

RE: Connecting rod design

Pat,
agreed. They cannot be called ''I'' beams as I mentioned before. A recent chat with Sauber guys in Paris led me to believe they call them A beams. Not for cross-section form, but the Elevation outline. The cross-section is a mishmash of different forms as you mentioned.
I sectioned a ti rod not so long ago to get a feel for material position. Ill post some pictures once I find all the bits.

Brian,

RE: Connecting rod design

Brian, maybe you cannot call them I-beams, but Mario Illien called them I-beams. In the comparison of I-beam vs H-beam in F1, Illien said "not H". This is consistent with the photos of F1 rods that I have seen. Do you have any pictures that show what you are talking about or even a good detailed description would be good. Note that reinforcing the web of an I-beam with ribs and struts is common in many engineering uses of I-beams. It is not so common to reinforce the flanges with ribs as we have seen on the Cosworth and Ferrari rods.
"A-beam", if referring to a straight tapered rod, is not related to the beam cross section at all. There can be A formed H-beams, I-beams, X-beams, hollow-beams, etc. All F1 rods I've seen over many years are wide, tapered rods in either H or I beams. They all have a curved taper except for a BMW H-beam from the early '80s. There are a lot of straight-taper aftermarket rods.
I wonder if the Sauber guys have anything to do with Ferrari engine design? Can you ask them what are the engineering reasons F1 stopped using H-beam rods since H-beams are very popular in other elite classes of racing?

RE: Connecting rod design

Im not calling them anything really. But what I am stating is they cannot be compared to ''I'' beams for engineering purposes, or depending on where the most mass lies in the rod because they bare no resemblance at all in either description.
Fair enough if you want to label them I's but thats just a terminology row then, and pointless.

I believe, and will settle on that they are a combined design, with some.

I will dig out the pictures in a week or two. They are on a dead drive that is currently with data recovery solutions in Dublin.
If they dont come out ok, Ill take more. Hopefully I still have all bits, as I gave a box of stuff/cutaways to a local school recently as learning tools.

peace,

Brian,

ps, Ill ask a few questions the next time Im with some engine guys,
pps, I dont think there is any 'best' design. The best design comes from thousands of euros, a lot of lads staring at screens, best materials, and a whole load of testing. The final shape is just a by-product of all the 'trimming'. Keep in mind too that all that has to tally with the working targets/endurance/lifespan in hand.

RE: Connecting rod design

Brian, that would be great.

RE: Connecting rod design

http://www.bmeltd.com/rods.htm
Here is an example of a nice con rod design.

Personally I can not understand the love affair with the H design. Who in a right mind would want 2 skinny edges with not much skin area as the beam? Does anyone know stress and strain anymore?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpRfREYa9Q
This shows the dynamic bending moments setup in operation. And how many overhead crane systems use an H beam, ie the beam twisted 90 degress? I think H beam is a cool factor marketing tool.

And yes look at something like a GSXR motorcycle, just a good old I beam rod, not fancy at all. 13K rpms and very high power density.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources