Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(10) 1–19
Ó The Author(s) 2017
Dynamic test bench for motocross DOI: 10.1177/1687814017726921
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
engines

Terje Rølvåg1 and Matteo Bella2

Abstract
Simulation of engine components enables early design verification and reduced development time while helping racing
teams in getting new knowledge. This article presents a multidiscipline dynamic test bench and a benchmark of two dif-
ferent connecting rods for HONDA CRF250R. The test bench embeds mechanical and control system modeling and
simulation including electric starters, ignition timing, power control as well as sensors and actuators enabling closed-loop
systems. A non-linear finite element program that combines the traditional separate multi-body simulation and finite ele-
ment modeling and simulation tasks captures all load cases and dynamic effects in one single run. Model reduction tech-
niques are applied to optimize simulation speed and results accuracy. The virtual test bench captures dynamic engine
effects and efficiently provides new knowledge about engine performance and integrity.

Keywords
Motocross, dynamic test bench, engine simulation, finite element analysis, multi-body simulation, control

Date received: 27 January 2017; accepted: 27 July 2017

Handling Editor: Aditya Sharma

Introduction displacements. However, this approach has no support

for stress stiffening effects introduced by high revolu-
More power, reduced weight, and compact dimensions tions per minute (crank speed) (RPM) causing critical
are the main design drivers for racing teams. Due to the tension forces. The MBS + finite element analysis
hectic racing season, these engines need to be developed (FEA) approach is therefore best suited for low RPM
within a short time frame.1 Since the crankshafts, con- high torque engines as shown in Johnson et al.2
necting rods, and pistons have a major impact on the Another and more accurate approach for virtual
integrity and dynamic performance, it is essential that testing of connecting rods is shown in Figure 2. This
the parts are modeled and benchmarked before the first approach combines ‘‘flexible multi-body modeling and
prototypes are built.2–5 The cyclic engine loads are gen- simulation.’’ Some vendors provide a close interfaced
erally difficult to estimate and model in conventional MBS/FE solution enabling flexible modes to be used in
finite element (FE) programs, and multi-body simula- a MBS simulation. If the engineers know the excitation
tion (MBS) software need to be used for behavior simu-
lation as shown in Johnson et al.2 and Fleck et al.4
This approach, as shown in Figure 1, includes many 1
Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Norwegian University of
data transfer operations between different modeling Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
2
and solver environments. The design process is there- MX Research & Development Department, MXRR, Torino, Italy
fore time-consuming and error prone for racing teams
Corresponding author:
with a traditional focus on physical testing. The results
Terje Rølvåg, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Norwegian
can be accurate when there is limited or no interaction University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
between the linear elastic displacements and rigid body Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 1. The MBS + FEA approach.

frequency range and include the right flexible modes, control system, multi-body, and FE solvers are also
the interaction between rigid body engine dynamics highly reduced. FE solver benefits like stress stiffening
and flexible modes can be captured. The MBS solver are captured while traditional multi-body gyro and
calculates the dynamic behavior as well as the ampli- Coriolis effects are preserved by the use of consistent
tudes of the flexible modes which can be used to cal- mass matrices and co-rotated frames (one for each
culate the physical stresses in a FE program as engine component). These benefits usually come with
shown in Johnson et al.2 and Montazersadgh and longer simulation times, but model reduction tech-
Fatemi.5 niques can reduce the computational burden without
This flexible MBS approach is the preference in the introducing over constrained system problems (ref.
aerospace and automotive industry. It is complex to MBS).
setup and run but has proven to get accurate results The authors have therefore developed a dynamic test
when applied by analysts.1,5 However, this approach bench for exact prediction of the dynamic forces, stres-
does not support stress stiffening and the numerical per- ses, and displacements that occur in the connecting rod
formance can be a challenge when the number of flex- and crankshaft under high-speed operation conditions
ible modes increases. Both MBS and FEA approaches as described in Vazhappillyn and Sathiamurthi3 and
can run in parallel with control system software repre- Montazersadgh and Fatemi.5 The test bench shown in
senting the ignition system starters and so on. To cap- Figure 4 is based on the Finite Element Dynamics of
ture all inertia loads, identify resonance problems and Elastic Mechanisms (FEDEM)6 software customized
peak loads at high engine speeds (9000–14,000 r/min), a by user functions supporting engine and power control
true integrated non-linear FEA as shown in Figure 3 systems as well as post processing features.
can provide important benefits. The article intends to demonstrate the accuracy and
With an integrated non-linear FEA solver, error significant benefits of the FEDEM test bench (for
prone model and load assumptions can be eliminated. engines) (FTB) in providing pivotal key performance
The data transfer problems between incompatible indicators (KPIs) for the design of the main engine
Rølvåg and Bella 3

Figure 2. The flexible MBS and FEA approach.

Figure 3. The FEDEM approach.

4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. The FEDEM test bench.

components, with unparalleled short-time processing connecting rods while higher RPM increases the tensile
and simplicity. The article is organized in connecting forces. In racing, most rods are pulled apart at high
rod design, method, theory, model, and dynamic simu- RPM. Consequently, in motocross engines running at
lation and post processing sections. The main connect- 14,000 r/min or more, increased tensile strength is the
ing rod design drivers are presented including main design driver. High RPM’s also represents critical
simulation and test challenges. The method section loads to the crankshaft journal bearings.
documents why and how a non-linear FE solver can The main purpose of the FTB is to integrate tradi-
provide important benefits in high-speed engine design tional separate design and simulation disciplines
and simulation. The theory section addresses the basic involved in motocross connecting rod design. These
modeling, simulation, and post processing fundamen- tasks traditionally include the following:
tals applied in the proposed dynamic test bench. The
model section describes the geometry, FE models, 1. Critical load case identification (MBS)
boundary conditions, and loads for a HONDA (a) Engine combustion pressure load model-
CRF250R OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) ing (compression);
engine setup (the reference) and a customized design (b) Dynamic inertia load identification at high
proposed by MXRR.7 The simulation section demon- speeds (tension).
strates the capabilities of the FTB. The modeling pro- 2. Stiffness and mass optimization (reciprocating)
cess and results are finally discussed and compared to (a) Design and analysis (CAD/FEA);
the state-of-the-art MBS and FE capabilities as well as (b) Material and manufacturing;
physical dynamometer testing. Modeling and process- 3. Optimization of fatigue life (shape optimization).
ing times are also considered. (a) Hot spot identification by the use of vir-
tual brittle lacquer (FEA);
(b) Strain- or stress-based fatigue analysis
Connecting rod design drivers
(strain gauge outputs);
When it comes to rod selection and design, ‘‘horse- (c) Surface treatment and shape optimization.
power’’ and ‘‘RPM’’ are the main design drivers. More 4. Buckling analysis (beam section optimization)
power increases the compressive force on the (a) Beam section modeling (CAD);
Rølvåg and Bella 5

(b) Modal analysis (FEA); simulation as shown in the next section. Some of the
(c) Buckling load identification (linear and FEDEM features/capabilities applicable to high-speed
non-linear FEA). engine simulations are as follows:

These tasks must be performed to optimize perfor-  The crankshaft, flywheels, balancing shafts, con-
mance and reliability of motocross engine components necting rods, rockers, cams, piston, and pins are
(structures). Recent advances in predictive virtual anal- represented by FE models (component mode
ysis tools and methods1,4 have eliminated many prob- synthesis (CMS) reduced superelements).
lems that would have traditionally been resolved in  The engine components are connected with vari-
development test programs. However, tasks (1) and (2) ous joint types based on numerical robust master
involve the use of multi-body (MBS) and structural and slave techniques eliminating problems with
software (FEA) which are incompatible and difficult to over constrained (rigid body) degrees of freedom
operate and integrate for most racing teams. These that enable more accurate bearing and cylinder/
teams have a unique competence in prototyping and piston modeling.6
testing but only a few have the skills and financial sup-  The control systems are created in a two-
port to buy, learn the simulation software and hard- dimensional (2D) environment interfaced with
ware. The proposed FTB framework should be able to the three-dimensional engine model. The 2D
perform a complete design and verification cycle includ- control systems represent the electric starter and
ing tasks (1) and (2) in less than 1 h. Buckling analyses the ignition system controlling the initial crank
(4) as described in Anderson and Yukioka,8 Moon speed followed by the reciprocating piston pres-
et al.,9 and Vegil and Vegi10 are not yet implemented sure causing crankshaft rotation. The control
since high-speed motocross engines tend to break in systems also control engine timing, simulation
tension due to inertia loads. Fatigue load identification outputs, and the sequence of operations using
and analysis as shown in Marquis and Solin11 are logical switches.
implemented in the FTB but not discussed in this article.  Modal analysis of the engine assembly at critical
The design variables in Table 1 can then be redesigned speeds can be performed including the effects
and checked. from stress stiffening. The modes can be ani-
The outputs in Table 2 are predefined as curves and mated to identify where the crankshaft of con-
animations in the FTB. necting rod need to be strengthen to eliminate
resonance or fatigue problems. Fast Fourier
Method transform (FFT) analysis of any type of response
curve can be performed to identify the problem
Main FEDEM features in the frequency domain.
FEDEM is a non-linear FE program embedding con-  Virtual brittle lacquer and S-N curves can be
trol system modeling and simulation. The FEDEM for- applied to the connecting rod or crankshaft to
mulation can be optimized for high-speed engine check how many hours, days, years or duty

Table 1. FTB design variables.

Discipline Variable

Mechanism Part, joint, gear, spring, damper, friction, sensor and actuator properties
Structural Mesh density, element types, material and damping properties, fatigue properties
Control Filter and transfer functions properties, logical switches, PD, PI, and PID engine controller
properties (electric starter)
Loads Torque versus RPM curves, combustion pressure distribution versus stroke, RPM limiter
properties, crank reference speed

PD: proportional–derivative; PI: proportional–integral; PID: proportional–integral–derivative; RPM: revolutions per minute (crank speed).

Table 2. FTB simulation results.

Discipline Output

Mechanism Piston and crank translational and rotational position, velocity and acceleration, bearing loads, output torque
Structural Stress and displacement distributions for selected or all parts, vibration modes (parts or assembly level), fatigue life
Control Electric current, voltage, applied energy or effect, sensor inputs, actuator outputs
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

cycles the engine will survive. Damage plots can motion for the motorbike at time t can then be written
be shown to identify the hot spots. Strain gauges as6
can be applied to output strain or stress time his-
tories on known hot spots (saves time compared FI ðt, r, r_ , €rÞ + FD ðt, r, r_ , €rÞ + FS ðt, r, r_ , €rÞ = Qðt, r, r_ , €rÞ
to full analysis). ð2Þ

These FEDEM features enable the FTB to do where FI represents inertia forces, FD represents damp-
dynamic tests and optimization of high-speed engines ing forces, FS represents elastic forces, and Q are input
as shown in Figure 4. loads. This equation can be written on incremental
form at time tk (tk = kh)

FE model reduction FIk + FD S

k + F k = Qk ð3Þ
In dynamic race engine simulation, the stresses, defor- where h is the step length (assumed constant). At time
mations, and vibrations are important to predict since tk + 1 , the equation can be written as
these units are severely loaded compared to stock
engines. The geometry and the optimal material prop- FIk + 1 + FD S
ð4Þ
k + 1 + F k + 1 = Qk + 1
erties of the links must be represented by FE models.
Each structural component is modeled as a FE supere- Subtracting the equations gives
lement with a co-rotated frame for separation of elastic  
and rigid body displacements. The superelements are (FIk + 1  FIk ) + FD D
k + 1  Fk
based on FE models reduced in FEDEM by the CMS ð5Þ
+ (FSk + 1  FSk ) = Qk + 1  Qk
method as shown in equation (1)6
    which can be written as
ve I 0 ve
v= = ð1Þ
vi B F y DFIk + DFD S
k + DFk = DQk ð6Þ

where ve are the external supernode displacements and This equation can be expanded to
y are the component mode (F) amplitudes contributing
to the elastic displacements in the condensed internal Mk D€rk + Ck D_rk + Kk Drk = DQk ð7Þ
degrees of freedom vi for one FE component. The where Mk , Ck , and Kk are the system mass, damping
retained supernode displacements ve represent the phys- and stiffness matrices, respectively, at the beginning of
ical displacements in the FE nodes used as assembly time increment k. The reduced system mass matrix Mk
points (joints) between the engine components. is fully populated, and the gyro effects which can have
In most situations, the internal structural deforma- a major impact on the racing bike dynamics are there-
tions vi can be well estimated by the external deforma- fore correct represented. The reduced system damping
tions vi = Bve . However, for a high-speed race engine matrix Ck is mass and stiffness proportional (the
running at v = 14,000 r/min (1466 rad/s), all fixed- Raleigh damping). The Raleigh damping can be used
interface-normal component modes below 1,5 *v = to tune low- and high-frequency structural damping
2200 rad/s = 350 Hz should be included. This is espe- from engine friction and oil drag. These effects can also
cially important for the crankshaft, connecting rod and be applied directly to the joints using non-linear dam-
piston. The high-speed reciprocating motion is causing pers and friction models. Linear and non-linear lumped
high inertia loads that might initiate resonances in both masses/inertias, dampers and springs representing the
connecting rods and crank axles. It is important to out- flywheels, dynamometer brakes, piston and pins not
line that while an OEM engine has the maximum RPM modeled by FEMs are directly added to the system
set to 13,400, in racing applications, this value can matrices.
exceed 14,200–14,500 r/min. At these high speeds, the The D€rk , D_rk , and Drk represent the change in nodal
inertia load from the piston and pin can be more criti- acceleration, velocity, and displacements during time
cal than the peak compression load during the combus- increment k. This equation is solved by the Newmark-
tion stroke. b time integration algorithm with respect to the displa-
cement increments Drk . The total solution at the end of
Dynamic simulation the time increment is then

The external supernode displacements ve and the com- rk + 1 = rk + Drk

ponent mode amplitudes y for each superelement
r_ k + 1 = r_ k + D_rk ð8Þ
(structural motorbike component) are stored in a sys-
tem displacement vector r. The dynamic equations of €rk + 1 = €rk + D€rk
Rølvåg and Bella 7

The solution at the end of the time increment is used engines are modeled and run in parallel. All inputs and
to calculate FIk + 1 , FD S
k + 1 , and Fk + 1 , and due to the lin- outputs are predefined in the FEDEM modeling envi-
earization, there will be unbalanced forces at the end of ronment so the only difference will be the actual com-
the time increment ponent to be tested. However, additional outputs can
  be added and new engine control systems can be added
^ k + 1 = Qk + 1  F I D S
ð9Þ
F k + 1 + Fk + 1 + Fk + 1 as user functions compiled in a dynamic link library
(dll).
which are added to the load increment for the next step The two models shown in Figure 5 are identical
  HONDA OEM components except for the connecting
^ k = Qk + 1  FI + FD + FS
DQk = Qk + 1  Qk + DF k k k rods and piston pins. The first model has the steel OEM
ð10Þ connecting rod with a steel wrist pin and a stock piston.
These components were measured and reengineered in
This gives the following approximation for the equa- NX and may have minor deviations from the OEM
tion at time step tk + 1 designs, whereas the masses and inertias are exact. The
  OEM piston, pin and rod were meshed and transferred
Mk D€rk + Ck D_rk + Kk Drk = Qk + 1  FIk + FD S
k + Fk to the FTB as a Nastran bulk data file. The rod mass
ð11Þ was 173 g while the piston and pin masses were 158
(including rings) and 34 g, respectively.
To achieve equilibrium at the end of the time incre-
The MXRR model presents an I-shaped rod design
ment, in the non-linear case, iterations have to be used
made of a Grade 5 titanium, with aerospace specs.
to minimize the error from the solution. The Newton–
Titanium offers a better stiffness to mass ratio than
Raphson iterations are therefore used to correct by
steel,12–14 which enabled a lower rod mass (125 g). The
iterations the variables (nodal displacements and modal
stock piston was used, but the titanium rod enables the
amplitudes) toward dynamic equilibrium at the time k
use of a titanium pin with the same stiffness and lower
€ k + Ck D_ k + Kk Dk = Qk + 1 mass (27 g). The total weight saving on the titanium
Mk D
 I  ð12Þ versus the OEM rod was therefore 55 g.
 Fk + 1 + FD S
k + 1 + Fk + 1

Due to the high-speed non-linear connecting rod Critical engine loads

behavior, the maximum number of iterations was set to
50. The system matrices Mk , Ck , and Kk were updated Based on the extensive knowledge acquired from top
only the first 20 iterations (the modified Newton– motocross racing teams and engine builders, the
Raphson iterations). The minimum number of itera- authors have formulated a set of loads to cover all pos-
tions was set to 2 to ensure a balance between the sible critical cases.
mechanical and control system forces.
With a time step size of 5.0e205 s, the required num-
Load case 1: maximum compression/combustion
ber of iterations varied between 2 and 7 for a typical
engine test sequence. The sequence included rewing up load
the engine with an electric motor to the engines power The most critical connecting rod and crankshaft com-
band (3000–9000 r/min) and then running the motor at pression loads come from the piston peak pressure and
constant speed in 1 s (150 crank rotations). The total distribution at low engine speeds (\9000 r/min). This
simulation time is about 5 min. When running the load case 1 (LC1) initiates maximum rod compression
engine above 14,000 r/min, the time step was reduced and crankshaft bending. Maximum rod bending may
to 1.0e205 s at the total simulation time increased to also come from the compression load but inertia forces
15–20 min. can generate higher bending loads in high-speed moto-
cross engines. In motocross engines, the peak pressure
typically occurs 10°–13° after top dead center (ATDC).
Model
The top dead center (TDC) represents the upper piston
The main vision with the FTB is to enable race teams to and rod position (before ignition). However, the drop
benchmark existing (OEM) engine components against in combustion pressure must be considered in order to
new concepts before they are manufactured and tested decide whether this load applies maximum crank tor-
in a physical dynamometer. To achieve maximum accu- que. Maximum crank torque typically occurs at lower
racy of the results, it is essential for the model to be a piston pressures and higher ATDC values (20°–30°)
very precise representation of a real engine and dynam- depending on the pressure drop (distribution) versus
ometer. To support easy and direct comparison of two increase in piston leverage. The critical loads causing
design variants, the main components of two identical maximum rod bending and compression as well as
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 5. The OEM (right) and MXRR (left) benchmark models.

ðum1 Þ2
crank bending and torque therefore depend on both 1
the cylinder peak pressure and distribution. f1 ðuÞ = P1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s1 2
s1 2p ð13Þ
In order to simulate with the maximum possible
for u 2 h08  1808i (intake stroke)
accuracy, all the real inputs targeting the model, the
authors decided to implement a complex function to
ðum2 Þ2
1
mimic the pressure applied on the dome of the piston f2 ðuÞ = P2 pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s2 2
s2 2p ð14Þ
during real four-stroke cycles. This approach, com-
bined with the ability to run the model at 14,000 r/min, for u 2 h5408  7208i ðexhaust strokeÞ
or above, truly represents an innovation in engine com-
ðum3 Þ2 !n
ponents simulation. The obtained ‘‘in-cylinder-pres- 1
f 3 ðu Þ = P 3 pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s3 2
sure’’ curve is the closest approximation to the real s3 2p ð15Þ
force input occurring in the combustion chamber of for u 2 h1808  m3 8i ðpower strokeÞ
this engine.

ðum3 Þ2
Three modified statistical Weibull/Gauss functions15 1
are implemented in a FEDEM user function to model f 3 ðu Þ = P 3pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s3 2
s3 2p ð16Þ
the pressure distribution during the four piston strokes
for u 2 m3 8  5408 ðpower strokeÞ
(intake, compression, power and exhaust). These
strokes represent a 720° crankshaft pressure and angu- where s1 , s2 , and s3 are the standard intake, exhaust,
lar cycle that is reset after four-stroke cycle. and compression/power pressure deviation, respec-
The Gauss functions are scaled by the peak pressure tively. The angle at maximum intake (vacuum), exhaust
P1 (intake), P2 (exhaust), and P3 (compression and and compression/power pressure are given by m1 , m2 ,
power) and m3 . Since the Gauss functions are giving a
Rølvåg and Bella 9

Figure 6. Typical four-stroke pressure versus crankshaft speed distribution.

normalized pressure distribution, they are scaled with time but it is only dependent on the crank angle and
the peak pressures for the intake, exhaust and compres- motor speed (RPM). The pressure variation will there-
sion/power strokes (P1 , P2 , and P3 , respectively). fore adapt to speed variations (always in sync).
The normalized value of f3 (u) is scaled with the The engine performance (power and torque) and
power of n (n = 6) for u 2 h1808  m3 8i to model the hence the peak pressure (P3 ) are speed dependent. The
rapid increase of piston pressure during the compres- peak pressure is usually driving the rod and shaft
sion stroke. The f3 (u) distribution is also reset if the dimensions, but the RPM dependency will influence on
crankshaft speed exceeds the rev. limiter value. A rev. fatigue results and other transient FTB outputs.
limiter is a device fitted to an internal combustion Figure 7 shows the measured torque versus speed curve
engine to restrict its maximum rotational speed. The for a modified HONDA CRF250R. To improve the
limiter cuts the spark to prevent engine damage, but it FTB simulation speed, these test data have been esti-
also eliminates the high combustion pressure that mated by a trend curve (third-order polynomial) and
reduces inertia loads at the TDC. To simulate this criti- normalized in Excel. The normalized curve is the used
cal load case, P3 is set to the compression pressure in _ in the FEDEM
a speed-dependent scaling factor N3 (u)
the next engine cycle. P3 is then given by the compres- user function. The speed-dependent peak pressure for
sion ratio and not the peak combustion pressure. The the power stroke is therefore given by
peak pressure for the power stroke (P3 ) should be based

ðum3 Þ2 !n
on pressure tests of a stock engine running with maxi- 1  
mum load and optimal timing in a physical dynam- f3 ðuÞ = P3 pffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s3 2  N3 u_
s3 2p ð17Þ
ometer. The peak pressure value can also be estimated
based on measured output torques. for u 2 h1808  m3 8i
However, when trying to optimize engine perfor-
ðum3 Þ2
mance, the safety margins and structural integrity are 1
f3 ðuÞ = P3 p ffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2s3 2  N3
sacrificed. By doing ‘‘in cylinder pressure’’ tests, the s3 2p ð18Þ
guesswork is eliminated and the most critical load cases for u 2 hm3 8  5408i
are indirectly identified with minimum uncertainty.
Such a test can also identify the intake, and exhaust where u_ is the crankshaft speed. Note that P3 is given
peak pressures P1 and P2 . HONDA CRF250R test by the compression ratio when u_ exceeds the rev. lim-
results are confidential but the pressure distribution iter speed (14,500 r/min for the HONDA engine). With
shown in is representative for a one-cylinder, four- a compression ratio of 13.5:1, the compression pressure
stroke 250 motocross engine (ATDC = 13°/peak pres- is approx. 13.5 bar but it is set to 1.2 MPa since the
sure of 11.5 MPa according to MX Real Racing7). The intake valve is not fully closed during the compression
pressure variation is shown in Figure 6 as a function of stroke.
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 7. HONDA CRF250R output torque versus RPM.

These parameters can be used to shape the user func- In the FTB, the dynamic loads are introduced by the
tion until it matches the desired speed-dependent pres- use of a starter engine bringing the crank to the desired
sure variation. The user function is compiled and linked test speed or past the minimum operating speed (2500 r/
as a dll located in a FEDEM plugin folder, and it can min for the CRF250R as shown in Figure 10). The ref-
be used to model the cylinder pressure for all four- erence speed is given by a limited ramp function.
stroke combustion engines. The user inputs are shaping The reference speed function is driving the engine up
the pressure distribution and can be tuned and pre- to its power band of 3000–9000 r/min. Then (after e.g.
viewed in an Excel spreadsheet before they are applied 1.1 s) the engine is started by applying and syncing the
to the FTB. piston pressure function described in the previous sec-
tion (Figure 8). Figure 9 shows that the pressure func-
tion described in the previous section is connected to
Load case 2: maximum tension load (inertia loads) the input block, scaled with the piston area (4633 mm2)
The other critical load source is due to the dynamic to calculate the applied piston force (activated by a
nature of a slider crank mechanism. High-speed racing logical switch after 1.1 s). Identical electric starter and
engines operating at 14,000 r/min or more are subjected engine control systems were modeled for the MXRR
to severe inertia loads from the rotating crankshaft and engine.
reciprocating rod, piston, and pin masses. These inertia
loads have sometimes proven to be more critical than
the combustion pressure loads. All engines also have a Simulation setup: combining all load cases in one run
rev limiter that cuts the ignition at the maximum To save modeling and simulation time when bench-
allowed speed, which removes the combustion pressure marking the OEM and MXRR engine models, load
that normally acts damping the critical inertia tension cases 1 and 2 (LC1 and LC2) are combined in one run
loads. The FTB can model these events to check as shown in Figure 10. The benchmark run can be
whether some connecting rod failures are due to fatigue divided into five different phases:
or critical peak loads at maximum speed and ignition
cuts. 1. Electric starter accelerates the crankshaft to
In most dynamic engine analysis,3,4 the inertia forces 3000 r/min which is within the operating speed
are estimated by running separate dynamic load analy- range of the HONDA engine.
sis in rigid body (MBS) software. As previously men- 2. Combustion starts and accelerates motor to
tioned, this approach is time-consuming and error 9000 r/min dynamometer brake is activated to
prone due to numerous data transfer operations.5 MBS benchmark output torque at 9000 r/min.
solvers also suffer from limited bearing modeling cap- 3. Maximum piston compression force and hence
abilities due to the rigid body formulation restricting output torque are available at 9000 r/min (LC1).
the number of applied joint constrains. Contrary to 4. Dynamometer brake is turned off and motor
MBS solvers, the FTB supports stress stiffening effects accelerates until rev limiter kicks in at 14,500 r/
influencing the dynamic performance and vibration min which represents maximum tension force
modes at critical speeds/load cases. (LC2).
Rølvåg and Bella 11

Figure 8. The electric starter control system.

Figure 9. The engine control system.

and hence increase acceleration and throttle response.

Before the test run was executed, the crankshafts were
balanced in a separate FTB model. Each crankshaft
was balanced with a 28% bob weight (mbobweight =
mbigend + mbearing + 0:28  (msmallend + mpistonpin )). The
bob mass is representing an equivalent rotating mass
clamped to the crankshaft journal bearing during bal-
ancing. The formula gives a bob mass of 108 g
(MXRR) and 129 g (OEM). A test run showed that
both crankshafts were well balanced in the engines
power band (9000–14,500 r/min).

Results and discussions

Figure 10. Engine test run. The key performance indicators (KPIs) shown in
Table 3 were chosen for the OEM (steel) and MXRR
(titanium) connecting rod benchmark. These perfor-
5. Still max throttle but brakes are turned on to mance indicators are related to both performance and
bring the RPM down from 14,500 to 8000 in structural integrity targets defined in Carlson and
0.8 s. This event is testing the structural integrity Ruff,16 Lapp et al.,17 and Mian and Carey.18
when a bike is airborne and hits the ground To qualify the HONDA CRF250R model setup, the
while the driver gives max throttle. piston pressure function (Figure 6) and an output
crank damper (dynamometer) were tuned to give the
Phases 3 to 5 capture the worst load cases (LC1 and HONDA CRF250R the nominal output break torque
LC2), while phases 2 and 4 give information about the and effect of a typical tuned racing engine (31.5 N m
engine performance. Lighter connecting rods, pins and and 30 kW at 9000 r/min—stock 24.8 N m and
pistons should reduce the effective crankshaft inertia 25.4 kW).
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Key performance indicators.

Key performance indicator Load case Comment

1 Maximum compression stresses in connecting LC1 Titanium offers a better stiffness to mass ratio compared
rod in simulation phase 3 (MPa) to the OEM steel. Does the organic shape of the MXRR
rod give reduced stresses and improved durability?
2 Critical vibration modes in simulation phases 2 LC1 Do any of the engine designs have resonance problems in
to 4, for example, the 3000–14,500 r/min speed the power range of the engine (9000–14,500 r/min)
range (50–240 Hz)
3 Maximum tension stresses in connecting rod in LC2 Which connecting rod and piston pin combination gives
simulation phase 4 (14,500 r/min) when rev less tension stress at high speeds (14,500 r/min) when rev
limiter kicks in (MPa) limiter eliminates the combustion pressure damping
4 Big-end bearing loads in simulation phases 3 and LC2 Which connecting rod and piston pin combination gives
4 (max compression and tension load) (N) less bearing load at high speeds (14,500 r/min)
5 Axial connecting rod displacements in simulation LC2 Which connecting rod offers the best stiffness-to-mass
phases 3 and 4 (mm) ratio and the hence the lowest axial deflection influencing
the compression ratio?
6 Maximum accidental stresses in connecting rod LC3 This can be regarded as an accidental load case (LC3)
in simulation phase 5 (MPa) when the driver keeps max throttle while the rear tire is
hitting ground and hard engine braking occurs
7 Maximum crankshaft acceleration at maximum LC1/LC2 The connecting rod and piston mass influence the crank
throttle in simulation phases 2 and 4 (rad/s2) inertia and hence the acceleration. How much faster is the
MXRR titanium rod?
8 Kinetic energy and effect variation due to LC1/LC2 How much effect is used to accelerate and decelerate the
connecting rod inertia (kW) OEM and MXRR rods and piston pins (influencing throttle
response and acceleration)
9 Motor effect and torque in simulation phase 3 LC1/LC2 How much net output effect is generated by the two
(kW) engines
10 Modeling and simulation efficiency LC1/LC2 This KPI is included to document the modeling and
simulation effort needed to complete one redesign and
test cycle

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer; KPI: key performance indicator.

Maximum compression stresses (KPI-1) (50–240 Hz) (Figure 12). Vibration modes close to
Maximum compression stresses for LC1 were expected 150 Hz is expected to be most critical since they can be
at 9000 r/min when the engines produce maximum excited in phase 3 when maximum piston pressure is
combustion force and output torque. The Von Mises applied at 9000 r/min (150 Hz).
Four modes were found below 150 Hz but only the
stresses were calculated for all time increments between
fifth (548 Hz) and sixth (561 Hz) modes were related to
1.46 and 1.47 s (phase 3) to capture the stresses at com-
structural deformation, for example, twisting of the
bustion. Maximum compression stress was 631 MPa
connecting rods and pistons. However, these modes are
(MXRR) and 811 MPa (OEM). The 22% peak stress
above the engine bandwidth (240 Hz) and fast Fourier
reduction for the MXRR titanium rod is achieved due
analysis of the big-end bearing loads (KPI-4) did not
to a better stiffness-to-mass ratio allowing a more beefy
indicate any responses to modes 5 and 6. These modes
small end section. The average stress level was about
are therefore not likely to cause resonance problems
20%–25% lower for the MXRR rod as shown in
unless fluid–structure interactions cause torsional
Figure 11.
vibrations.
The maximum stresses are not acting simultaneously
since the two engine speeds are different and hence not
synchronized. No bending stresses or deformations Maximum tension stresses (KPI-3)
indicating buckling problems at maximum piston force
(13° after TDC) were observed. Maximum tension stresses for LC2 were expected at
14,500 r/min when the rev limiter kicks in or at maxi-
mum speed of 15,200 r/min (MXRR) and 14,700 r/min
Critical vibration modes (KPI-2) (OEM) (Figures 13 and 14). The stress variations
Modal analysis of the engine assembly was performed between 1.58 and 1.62 s were calculated at each simula-
at prescribed time incidents in the same run to identify tion time step to capture all peak stresses. Maximum
(changes in) vibration modes in simulation phases 2 to tension stress was 302 MPa (MXRR) and 348 MPa
4, for example, the 3000–14,500 r/min speed range (OEM). These values represent the stress levels when
Rølvåg and Bella 13

Figure 11. LC1—maximum compression stresses (stress range is 0–600 MPa).

Figure 12. Changes in vibration modes due to stress stiffening and non-linear effects.

and piston pin mass reducing the inertia forces, even

though the MXRR top speed is 500 RPM higher. The
larger small end section contributes to lower tension
stresses. The maximum stresses are not acting simulta-
neously since the two engine speeds are different and
hence not synchronized. No bending stresses or defor-
mations due to inertia forces at maximum speed were
observed.

Big-end bearing loads (KPI-4)

The maximum applied piston combustion force in the
vertical stroke direction (x) is 54 kN at 9000 RPM as
Figure 13. Maximum OEM and MXRR speed. shown in Figure 15. In a static analysis, this would be
the big-end bearing reaction force that would be distrib-
the rods have maximum speed and extensions. The uted to the crankshaft journal bearings. However, in
13% MXRR stress reduction is due to the lower rod the FTB dynamic simulation, the applied piston force is
14 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 14. LC2—maximum tension stresses (stress range is 0–300 MPa).

Figure 15. Applied piston forces.

transformed to inertia, damping, and elastic forces. The axial connecting rod displacement that might influence
rods are assigned 3% mass and stiffness proportional the compression ratios of the engines. Figure 17 shows
damping to eliminate potential internal vibrations and that maximum MXRR rod compression is 20.30 mm
numerical problems at two component modes under versus 20.22 mm for the OEM rod. Young’s modulus
9000 r/min (942 Hz). Energy calculations showed that is higher for the OEM steel rod (2.06e11) compared to
the applied damping gives the MXRR and OEM rod the MXRR titanium rod (1.2e11) but higher inertia
almost identical damping forces and energy loss. The forces stretching the rod tend to compensate for the
bearing loads are therefore not sensitive to the applied higher stiffness. The net effect is more MXRR com-
damping. pression that might cause buckling after combustion,
Since the MXRR connecting rod has a higher but it will not influence the compression ratio (piston
stiffness-to-mass ratio than the OEM solution, the position before ignition).
MXRR compression loads are slightly higher as shown At constant 9000 r/min (phase 3), the rod extensions
in Figure 16. The peak bearing compression loads are are 0.043 mm (MXRR) and 0.033 mm (OEM). At speeds
49 kN (MXRR) and 47.5 kN (OEM). However, the above 14,500 r/min, the MXRR titanium rod extends
peak tension forces due to inertia effects are 9.2 kN (0.13 mm) and the OEM rod (0.06 mm). The heavier
(MXRR) and 10.2 kN (OEM). Hence, the peak com- OEM design causing higher inertia loads, but benefits on
pression force is 3% higher and the peak tension force a higher Young’s modulus. However, the stretch values
is 10% lower for the MXRR rod. after 1.5 s are not directly comparable since the MXRR
top speed is 500 r/min higher than the OEM.
Axial connecting rod displacements (KPI-5)
Relative sensors are located between the center of the Maximum accidental stresses (KPI-6)
small and big end of the MXRR and the OEM con- This can be regarded as an accidental load case but it is
necting rods. These sensors are measuring the relative a frequent motocross event. The driver keeps max
Rølvåg and Bella 15

Figure 16. Bearing loads at rod big end.

Figure 17. Axial connecting rod displacements.

throttle while the rear tire is hitting ground and hard

engine braking occurs. This event is captured in the
simulation phase 5 when a ‘‘virtual tire breaking’’ brings
the RPM down from 14,500 to 8000 in 0.8 s.
Traditional MBS + FEA approaches applied in
Vazhappillyn and Sathiamurthi3 and Montazersadgh
and Fatemi5 would not capture the worst case time
incident without time-consuming data transfer opera-
tions and numerous FE analyses. In the FTB software,
‘‘virtual brittle lacquer’’ can be applied to the two con-
necting rods. Then a worst case stress search can be
setup as shown in Figure 18. This feature automatically
performs stress analysis of all external element surfaces
to identify the peak stresses during simulation phase 5
(1.6–2.4 s). This search identified maximum stresses in Figure 18. Maximum stress search setup.
phase 5 to be 750 and 925 MPa for the MXRR and
16 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 19. Maximum accidental stresses (stress range is 0–750 MPa).

Figure 20. Maximum crankshaft acceleration.

OEM connecting rods, respectively, as shown in and 14,500 r/min as seen in the HONDA CRF250R
Figure 19. torque curve in Figure 7. The MXRR accelerates faster
causing a faster drop in available torque which should
decrease the difference. However, the OEM reciprocat-
Maximum crankshaft acceleration (KPI-7) ing mass requires more effect to accelerate/decelerate as
This KPI is a performance test on maximum crankshaft shown in the KPI-8 section. The net effect is higher
acceleration at maximum throttle in simulation phases engine acceleration for the hole power band when low-
2 and 4 (rad/s2) (Figure 20). The rod and piston mass ering the connecting rod mass.
influence the crank inertia and hence the acceleration.
The lighter MXRR rod should give a benefit in terms
of acceleration and throttle response compared to the Kinetic energy and effect variation (KPI-8)
OEM design. The top speed will therefore be reached Through FTB, it was possible to clearly demonstrate
faster with less rod inertia since less effect is needed. the importance of minimizing the reciprocating mass of
In phase 2, maximum MXRR crankshaft accelera- connecting rods.13 The kinetic energy variations were
tion is in average 5% higher compared to the OEM calculated for the OEM steel and MXRR titanium rods
engine. The difference in acceleration increases up to as shown in Figure 21. The kinetic energy was filtered
9000 r/min due to more available engine torque. In with a 100 Hz low pass filter to remove energy fluctua-
phase 4, the difference is 8%. This is not as obvious tions and visualize the energy (work) that is required to
since available engine torque drops 20% between 9000 bring the MXRR (95 J) and the OEM (125 J)
Rølvåg and Bella 17

Figure 21. OEM versus MXRR kinetic energy (filtered to the right).

The energy fluctuations due to the accelerations and

retardations of the reciprocating rods are 38 J (OEM)
and 27 (MXRR). Less it better because this energy is
transmitting to the engine supports causing discomfort
and potential fatigue problems. The corresponding
effect (power) variations are important because they
indicate how much motor effect it takes to accelerate
and decelerate the reciprocating rod mass.
The peak power required to accelerate the OEM rod
at constant speed (9000 r/min) was 1.1 kW while the
MXRR titanium rod only required 0.85 kW (Figure
23). This energy is taken and returned to the crankshaft
at TDC and bottom dead center (BDC) and hence not
Figure 22. OEM versus MXRR kinetic energy variations. representing a loss in itself. However, due to structural
damping and friction effects, the MXRR rod will trans-
mit more output power and less vibrations.
connecting rods up to maximum speed (14,500 r/min).
Compared to the OEM rod, the MXRR titanium rod
requires 24% less energy which has a major impact Motor power (KPI-9)
on the throttle response and gas consumption Just before 9000 r/min, the dynamometer brake was
(Figure 22). switched on and the output power was measured for

Figure 23. Power variations OEM versus MXRR conrod (engine connecting rod between crank and piston).
18 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 24. OEM (red) versus MXRR (blue) crank speed and power.

both engines as shown in Figure 24. The left curve as explained in section ‘‘FE model reduction’’ before a
shows that the MXRR crank is accelerating faster to new test run is executed. The model reduction and
9000 r/min due to less reciprocating mass and hence has simulation should take less than 1 h. The simulation
a quicker throttle response. The MXRR crank there- setup is robust so a complete redesign and test cycle
fore initially produces more output power (1.5 kW). should take 4–8 h.
The difference in output power reduces to 0.4 kW when
constant speed is reached (the different inertias have no
Conclusion
effect).
The difference in output power is caused by the dif- This article presents a multidiscipline dynamic test
ference in reciprocating inertia forces and hence more bench (FTB). The test bench embeds electric starters,
friction and energy loss for the OEM engine. The dif- ignition timing, power control as well as sensors and
ference in output power and top speed will increase actuators enabling closed-loop control systems. A FE-
with the friction levels and is probably larger that based simulation program captures dynamic engine
shown in Figure 24. In this benchmark, no friction is effects which provide new knowledge about engine per-
applied to the MXRR and OEM pistons or bearings. formance at high speeds (9000–14,500 r/min). Model
Both non-linear friction and viscous damping could reduction techniques are applied to optimize the simu-
have been applied but no test data were available. Only lation speed and results accuracy. The virtual test bench
3% Rayleigh (mass and stiffness proportional) damp- eliminates the use of rigid body–based solvers (MBS) to
ing of the first 2 connecting rod modes was used to can- identify critical load cases.
cel out artificial numerical vibrations. To demonstrate the potential of the FTB, steel ver-
sus titanium connecting rods for a HONDA CRF250R
have been benchmarked. A single test run capturing
Modeling and simulation performance (KPI-10) the most critical load cases is executed. The outputs
The absolute value of the FTB is to provide engineering show the benefits of reducing the reciprocal weight of
knowledge faster and cheaper than real prototyping connecting rods, pistons, and pins. The benefits are
and testing. Based on numbers from MXRR, a tradi- reported as 10 different key performance indicators
tional design, production, and dynamometer test pro- (KPIs) related to both structural integrity and perfor-
cess takes between 1 and 2 months depending on the mance. These KPIs are setup as predefined curves and
customer requirements. animations to minimize the design and testing cycle for
engine components. The FTB has proven to be a
To shorten this cycle, the FTB has been designed for
robust, accurate, and efficient tool for connecting rod
optimal reuse of input loads, joint constraints, compo-
design and testing.
nents, and graphs/curves. A FTB design and test itera-
tion will therefore only include manual CAD redesign
and FE meshing (1–2 h). Then the meshed FE model is Acknowledgement
exported to FEDEM as a Nastran bulk data file. Then The authors would like to thank Fedem Technology AS and
it can replace an existing engine component in the FTB. Falicon Crankshaft Inc. in providing support and valuable
The new component will automatically be preprocessed inputs for the article.
Rølvåg and Bella 19

Declaration of conflicting interests 7. MX Real Racing. Information retrieved from Matteo

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Bella. May 2017, http://www.mxrealracing.com/
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 8. Anderson A and Yukioka M. Connecting rod buckling
article. analysis using eigenvalue and explicit methods. SAE
technical paper 2012-32-0102, 2012.
9. Moon H, Shin S, Lee K, et al. Development and applica-
Funding tion of buckling estimation method in engine connecting
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, rod. SAE technical paper 2007-01-3546, 2007.
authorship, and/or publication of this article. 10. Vegil LK and Vegi VG. Design and analysis of connect-
ing rod using forged steel. Int J Sci Eng Res 2013; 4:
2081–2090.
References 11. Marquis G and Solin J. Fatigue design of components, vol.
1. Rølvåg T. Using finite element modelling and simula- 22. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997.
tions to test MotoGP race bikes. Int J Veh Syst Model 12. Kimura A, Nakamura S, Isogawa S, et al. A free machin-
Test 2015; 10. ing titanium alloy for connecting rods. SAE technical
2. Johnson T, Campbell B, Gibson G, et al. Impact of paper 910425, 1991.
reduced rotating mass to throttle response in a CBR600F4i 13. Pomeroy L. Advantages of light-weight reciprocating
engine. SAE technical paper 2005-01-3448, 2005. parts. SAE technical paper 220044, 1922.
3. Vazhappillyn CV and Sathiamurthi P. Stress analysis of 14. Hagiwara Y and Takahashi K. Development of surface
connecting rod for weight reduction: a review. IJSRP treatment and application to mass-production of tita-
2013; 3: 1–5. nium connecting rods. SAE technical paper 891769,
4. Fleck B, Fleck R, Kee R, et al. Validation of a computer 1989.
simulation of a high performance two-stroke motorcycle 15. Weibull W. Fatigue testing and analysis of results. 1st ed.
racing engine. SAE technical paper 2004-01-3561, 2004. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1961.
5. Montazersadgh FH and Fatemi A. Stress analysis and 16. Carlson B and Ruff J. New considerations in connecting
optimization of crankshafts subject to dynamic loading. rod design. SAE technical paper 831323, 1983.
A final project report submitted to the Forging Industry 17. Lapp M, Krause R, Hall C, et al. Advanced connecting
Educational Research Foundation (FIERF) and Ameri- rod design for mass optimization. SAE technical paper
can Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), University of Toledo, 2010-01-0420, 2010.
Toledo, OH, August 2007. 18. Mian O and Carey C. Compact and lightweight design of
6. Sivertsen OI. Virtual testing of mechanical systems. Lisse: a connecting rod big-end. SAE technical paper 2005-01-
Swets & Zeitlinger, 2001. 3815, 2005.