Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

SAE International Journal of Engines

Fracture-splitting processing performance study and comparison of the C70S6 and
36MnVS4 connecting rods
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: JENG-2018-0004R1

Full Title: Fracture-splitting processing performance study and comparison of the C70S6 and
36MnVS4 connecting rods

Short Title: Fracture-splitting processing performance of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4

Article Type: Original Article

Corresponding Author: Zhou Shi

CHINA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution:

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Shuqing Kou, professor

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Shuqing Kou, professor

Zhou Shi, Doctor

Weifeng Song

© 2018 SAE International

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

03-11-04-0031

Fracture-Splitting Processing Performance Study and Comparison of the C70S6 and

36MnVS4 Connecting Rods

Abstract: 36MnVS4 is a new connecting-rod fracture-splitting material. To explore why it has a high fracture-
splitting defective index, this paper simulated the fracture-splitting process of connecting rods. Comparing 36MnVS4
with C70S6, this paper analyzed the stress-strain state of the groove roots, the position of crack initiation, the plastic
deformation distribution of the fracture surface, and the splitting force changes in fracture splitting process. Results
show that the crack initiation position of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is relatively more scattered and random, and
the crack starting point of the C70S6 connecting rod is more unique. Compared with the C70S6 connecting rod, the
36MnVS4 connecting rod has an earlier crack initiation time and smaller fracture-splitting force. Therefore, the
36MnVS4 has higher gap sensitivity and its fracture surface is more prone to tear. Through test validation, it is
determined that the fracture surface of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod has some deformation, steps, and tear, while the
fracture surface of the C70S6 is more flat. The fracture surface quality of the C70S6 connecting rod is relatively
higher. Experimental results are consistent with the finite element, and it proves the rationality of the selection of
fracture criteria.
Key words: 36MnVS4, cracking properties, crack initiation, three-dimensional crack propagation, gap sensitivity,
tear
Introduction
High-carbon micro-alloy non-tempered steel C70S6 is the first internationally mature steel for fracture-splitting
connecting rods. Currently, the C70S6 is China's main application material for fracture-splitting connecting rods, and
has achieved localization, which has the characteristics of high strength, good material purity, and excellent cracking
performance [1, 2]. However, the yield strength of C70S6 steel is slightly lower. Compared to the quenched and
tempered steel of the same strength, C70S6 steel has low fatigue strength and its cutting performance is also poor [3,
4]. With the development of lightweight, high quality and low pollution, the automobile has higher demands on the
high-explosive and low-energy consumption of the engine. New material, medium carbon micro-alloyed non-
modulating steel 36MnVS4 emerges [5]. However, there are few studies on the fracture-splitting process performance
of 36MnVS4 material.
This study focuses on the mechanical properties and fracture-splitting properties of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6.
Through the tensile test and metallographic-scanning experiment, the material’s stress-strain curves and mechanical
performance parameters are obtained. Based on the theory of fracture mechanics and stress concentration, the
fracture-splitting process of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods are conducted via simulation, using ANSYS
/ LS-DYNA. The distribution law of the main mechanics fields of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods is
obtained, including the crack initiation and three-dimensional crack propagation. The fracture-splitting characteristics
and fracture surface quality of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 connecting rods are verified by connecting rod fracture-
splitting tests. This has significance for better promotion and application of the new fracture-splitting material
36MnVS4.
1 Material performance comparison
1.1 Microcosmic characteristics
After hot forging and air cooling, samples of size 8 mm×8 mm×10 mm are selected from the 36MnVS4 and C70S6
connecting rods by wire cutting. Using alcohol as a solvent, the samples are cleaned by ultrasonic oscillation. Next,

Author Accepted Manuscript

samples are etched with nitric acid alcohol solution and dried. Observation of the metallographic structure is
conducted using an Olympus LEXT metallographic microscope. The results are shown in Figure 1, which indicate
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

that the C70S6 consists of a large number of fine pearlite and a small amount of intermittent network-like ferrite. The
grain size of the C70S6 is lower. The high-hardness lamellar cementite of the C70S6 reduces its machinability. The
36MnVS4 is mainly composed of pearlite and ferrite, but the block-like ferrite is dominated, and the grains are
obviously refined compared to the C70S6. The grain-size number is approximately 8∼9, and the content of ferrite
and pearlite is equivalent, which significantly improves the cutting performance of the 36MnVS4 [6].

(a) C70S6 (b) 36MnVS4

Fig.1. Optical microstructure of the tested steels
1.2 Mechanical properties
The tensile test is conducted on the CSS-44100 electronic universal testing machine, on which the servo motor uses
as the power source and the screw as the actuator. Standard samples are prepared according to the machining process
of connecting rod forging and air cooling, and the basic dimensions of the sample are determined according to GB
6397-86. Due to the high hardness of the two materials, the data indicates that the tensile strength are all
approximately 1000 MPa. As a result, a short specimen with a diameter of 5 mm is selected. The sample's
specifications and dimensions are added as shown in Figure 2. In the test, the tensile rate is 0.1 mm/s. Four specimens
of C70S6 and 36MnVS4 are tested. The tensile-displacement curve measured in the test is shown in Figure 3(a). The
engineering stress-strain curve of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 are obtained using the average method. Relationship (1)
and (2) convert engineering stress-strain to the real stress-strain curves [7], as shown in Figure 3(b).
   nom ( nom  1) （1）

  ln( nom  1) （2）

Note that  is ture stress,  is ture strain,  nom is engineering stress, and  nom is engineering strain.

Fig.2. The sizes of tensile test specimen

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

(a) Load-displacement curve (b) Ture stress-ture strain curve

Fig. 3. Tensile test curves
The basic mechanical properties obtained by the tensile test are listed in Table 1. The yield strength and tensile
strength of the 36MnVS4 are compared to the C70S6, and the increase in yield strength is especially pronounced.
The 36MnVS4 has a high yield ratio, which is conducive to the fracture-splitting performance.
Table1. Material mechanic parameters
Elastic Modulus Poisson's ratio yield strength tensile strength Fracture stress Fracture
Material
E/MPa V σs/MPa σb/MPa σf/MPa strain
C70S6 2.1e5 0.27 592 932 1125 0.19854
36MnVS4 2.08e5 0.27 742 998 1175 0.21223

2 Fracture-splitting process analyzing and finite element modeling

The manufacturing process of a connecting rod fracture-splitting involves: prefabrication cracking notches, applied
load, fracture splitting, bolts assembly, and follow-up processing.
2.1 Fracture-splitting process
The connecting rod samples are shown in Figure 4. The main dimensions of the connecting rod are as follows. The
diameter of the big end is 41.8 mm and the diameter of the bolt hole is 6.50 mm. The center distance between the big
and small end is 147.5 mm, and the thickness of the connecting rod is 17.9 mm. The distance from the bolt hole to
the outer edge is 2.10 mm. The parameters of the notch of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 connecting rods are the same,
as shown in Table 2.The materials of the connecting rods are the C70S6 and 36MnVS4. The properties of the
materials are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 4. Connecting rod samples

Table 2. The groove geometric parameters

Notch length l/mm Notch depth h/mm Opening angle α/(°) Radius of curvature r/mm
17.9 0.5 60 0.2

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

(a) Process crack notch （b）Connecting rod fracture-splitting

Fig. 5. Connecting rod fracture-splitting process
The machining process of the crack notch is a broaching process that uses a set of broaching tools with increasing
depth to move radially along the large head hole and forms a V-shaped cracking groove. The machining process of
the crack notch is shown in Figure 5(a). The structure of the crack notch is shown in the red circle in Figure 4.
Cracking equipment is used for connecting rod fracture splitting tests, as shown in Figure 5(b). First, the connecting
rod 4 (with prefabricated crack groove) is fixed using the small-end positioning pin 7, the fixed block 2, and the
movable block 3. Then a small load is applied to the movable block 3, to ensure that the movable block and the inner
wall of the big end are in close contact. The connecting rod is locked and fixed by controlling the briquetting 6 and
briquetting 5. Then, the wedge block 1 moves downward by driving the main oil cylinder. Form the acceleration, the
slope of the wedge block 1 makes in contact with the movable block 3. At this time, the downward movement of the
wedge block 1 is converted into the horizontal movement of the movable block 3, and finally the separation of the
connecting rod shaft and the connecting rod cap is achieved. In the process of fracture splitting, the small end
positioning pin 7 only plays the role of positioning. The wedge block 1 acts only to transfer a load and change the
load direction. The briquetting 5 and briquetting 6 is fixed and compacted after the oil cylinder-locking connecting
rod [8]. Therefore, the components of 1, 5, 6, and 7 are ignored during element modeling.
2.2 Fracture criterion and theoretical basis of crack propagation
The essence of connecting rod fracture-splitting is the use of artificial prefabricated notches to achieve low-stress,
type-I brittle fracture. Both the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 are ductile materials. By observing the fracture surface
morphology, it details that the two materials are obviously brittle cleavage fractures when there is a gap, so it can be
determined that the same fracture criterion is applicable.
The fracture-splitting process of the connecting rod can be divided into two stages: crack formation at the root of the
incision and crack propagation. Due to the presence of cracking notch, different stress and strain fields at the root of
the actual notch and the ideal crack tip are caused. Cracking in the notch of the connecting rod belongs to a passivation
crack. The stress state in the root of the incision is shown in Figure 6, and stress field expression of the blunt crack
tip is shown in (3) [9,10].

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

Fig.6. The stress state of the incision′s root

 K    3  K   3
 x  cos 1  sin sin   cos
 2  r 2  2 2  2 r 2 r 2
 K 
  3  K 

3
 y  cos 1  sin sin   cos
 2 r 2  2 2  2  r 2 r 2 (3)

  K  cos  sin  cos 3  K   cos 3
 

 xy 2 r 2 2 2 2 r 2r 2


 xz   yz  0
   　 ( x   y ), plane strain
 y
 z  0, plane stress
Note that 𝜎𝑥 ,𝜎𝑦 , 𝜎𝑧 , and 𝜏𝑥𝑦 are the stress components, and r and 𝜃 are the polar coordinates of the point near the
groove tip. 𝑣 is the Poisson’s ratio. K  is the stress intensity factor. For the root of the incision, θ = 0, and r = ρ / 2.
Substituting θ and r into (3) obtains:
 x  0
 
 2K 
 y  (4)
 
  0
 xy

From equation (4), only 𝜎𝑦 is not equal to 0. Therefore, the root of the incision is the uniaxial tension state, and the
maximum tensile stress is equal to the first principal stress. The theory of maximum tensile stress considers the main
reason for the brittle fracture is that the maximum tensile stress reaches the ultimate tensile stress when the material
is uniaxial stretched. Experiments show that when the brittle material fractures in two-way and three-way stretching,
the theory and the experimental results are also consistent [11]. The reason for the connecting rod fracture is that the
maximum tensile stress reaches the material fracture limit, and the maximum tensile stress is equal to the first
principal stress. Therefore, the maximum principal stress is used as the fracture criterion in the finite element analysis
and calculation.
2.3 Finite element modeling
2.3.1 Modeling and boundary condition settings
The geometries, constraints and forces of the connecting rod are symmetrical about the middle thickness surface and
axis of the connecting rod. The small end and rod shaft have no effect on the fracture-splitting process. The modeling
only selects a quarter of the big end. The movable and fixed block are simplified as rigid bodies. The connecting rod
is a deformable body. In order to avoid the error of the calculation result caused by a large number of unit failures,

Author Accepted Manuscript

the hexagonal mesh is divided by the transition network method, and the mesh is encrypted in the cracking area, as
shown in Figure 7.
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

Fig.7. Connecting rod model and mesh distribution

According to the motion law of the connecting rod fracture-splitting, a full constraint is applied to the rigid fixed
block. The rigid movable block limits all rotation and Uz = Ux = 0. The symmetry surface 1 (middle thickness surface)
and symmetry surface 2 are applied to the displacement constraints Uz = 0 and Ux = 0. According to the experiment,
the movable block is applied at the speed load, that is, 15mm / s along the Y-axis.
2.3.2 Material parameters and fracture criteria setting.
In the numerical simulation of the connecting rod fracture-splitting, the load and material definition are performed
using ANSYS, and the K file is generated. Then, the maximum principal stress fracture criterion is defined by adding
keywords *MAT_ADD_EROSION in the K file. Finally, the K file is submitted to the LS-DYNA solver for solving.
LS-DYNA sets the unit's failure function and simulates the crack's generation and expansion through the unit's
gradual demise. When the stress concentration at the notch's root causes the stress of a certain element to reach the
set value (fracture stress 𝜎𝑓 ), the element will fail and be deleted, so that the stress is redistributed and new stress
concentration is induced. Multiple failed units penetrate sequentially, forming a crack growth process.
3 Mechanics fields analysis in the entire fracture-splitting process of C70S6 and 36MnVS4
connecting rods
The crack initiation and crack propagation process of the two kinds of connecting rods are investigated, and the
fracture-splitting force and crack propagation velocity are analyzed. The plastic deformation of the fracture surface
before and after the fracture are observed, and the influence on the fracture surface quality are discussed. The fracture-
splitting effect and degree of difficulty of the two materials are then compared.
3.1 Crack initiation analysis
3.1.1 Stress-strain field at crack initiation
Figure 8 shows the first principal stress distribution of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 connecting rods at crack initiation.
On the whole, the stress concentration of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 connecting rods in the vicinity of the cracking
notch are significant, the stress distributions are both butterfly-like, and the high-stress regions are located in the
groove root. In contrast, stress concentration of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is more obvious than that of the C70S6
connecting rod. Because the yield strength of the 36MnVS4 is higher, the first principal stress of the crack tip
increases faster and the high stress region is more concentrated. The fracture stress of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 is
not much different, so the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is more prone to brittle fracture.

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

(a) C70S6 (b) 36MnVS4

Fig.8. The first principal stress at crack initiation

(a) C70S6 (b) 36MnVS4

Fig.9. The equivalent plastic strain at crack initiation
Figure 9 shows the equivalent plastic strain of the C70S6 and 36MnVS4 connecting rods at crack initiation. It can be
seen that the plastic region of the C70S6 connecting rod is butterfly-shaped and the region is relatively large, while
the plastic zone of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is elliptical and the area is small. Plastic deformation near the groove
root of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is smaller, so the 36MnVS4 connecting rod has a better fracture-splitting effect.
3.1.2 The stress state of characteristic lines
The stress of the characteristic lines are: notch root (L1), leading edge of crack tip (L2), v-type notch edge of middle
thickness surface (L3), and v-type notch edge of outside surface (L4), as shown in Figure 10. These are extracted at
crack initiation.
Figure 11 (a) shows that the first principal stress of the C70S6 connecting rod from the middle thickness surface to
outside surface decreases fast, but the 36MnVS4 connecting rod changes gently. This illustrates that along the
thickness direction, the stress of the C70S6 connecting rod is more concentrated in the middle, while stress
distribution of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is more uniform. The crack initiation point of the C70S6 connecting rod
tends to be more unique, that is, in the middle thickness surface. However, the crack initiation point of the 36MnVS4
connecting rod trends to intersperse, and the crack initiation position is random and unstable.

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

Fig.10. The position of feature lines

（a）L1 （b）L2

（c）L3 （d）L4
Fig.11. The stress of the characteristic lines
As shown in Figure 11 (b), the peak of the first principal stress appears near the surface layer of the groove root in
the middle thickness surface. The surface layer is under the three-way stress state where the unit first reaches the
fracture stress, so the crack initiation is generated. The distance from peak position to the groove root of the 36MnVS4
and C70S6 connecting rods are 0.16mm and 0.09mm, respectively, which shows that the position of the formative
initial crack of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is deeper.
Compared with Figure11 (c) and (d), the stress concentration of the crack groove is the most outstanding. In the
thickness direction (theoretical fracture surface), the stress concentration at the notch edge of the middle thickness
surface (L3) is higher than the notch edge of the outside surface (L4). The difference in the C70S6 connecting rod is

Author Accepted Manuscript

more obvious. However, the peak stress of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is relatively gentle, so that the starting
position is unstable. In the middle thickness surface direction (XY-surface), along the v-type notch edge of the middle
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

thickness surface, the stress peak-valley difference of the C70S6 connecting is approximately 16 times. The difference
of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is nearly 10 times. It can be shown that the stress concentration of the 36MnVS4 is
not as significant as that of the C70S6 along the middle surface direction. Summing Figure11 (c) and (d), in both the
middle surface direction and the thickness direction, the stress concentration of the C70S6 connecting rod is more
significant. This indicates that the starting point of the C70S6 is more unique, and the starting position of the
36MnVS4 connecting rod is more random and unstable.
3.2 Three-dimensional crack propagation
3.2.1 Fracture-splitting force and crack propagation time
Figure 12 shows the variation curves of the fracture-splitting force of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods over
time. The start time of the crack propagation of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is 7.660 × 10-3 s; the end time of crack
propagation is 7.670 × 10-3 s, and the total time is 0.01 × 10-3 s. The initiation time of the C70S6 connecting rod is
1.1553 × 10-2 s, the end time of fracture-splitting is 1.1561 × 10-2 s, and the total time is 0.008 × 10-3 s. In contrast,
the start time of crack propagation of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is earlier, but the C70S6 connecting rod has a
faster crack growth rate. The total fracture-splitting time of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is increased by nearly 20%
compared with the C70S6 connecting rod, which increases the possibility of defects produced in the process of crack
propagation. The start time of crack propagation of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is earlier which indicates the
36MnVS4 has a stronger notch sensitivity.
The fracture-splitting force of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods are 19.6 KN and 29.8 KN, respectively,
when the model is simplified to a quarter. After fourfold expansion, the ultimate fracture-splitting forces of the
connecting rods are 71.2 KN and 112.4 KN, respectively, and are close to the 86 KN and 124 KN obtained from the
fracture-splitting test. It can be seen that the required fracture-splitting force of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is less,
thus validating the effectiveness of the simulation. Under the same fracture-splitting conditions, C70S6's yield
strength is lower. Its crack tip enters the plastic deformation more easily and the plastic region is larger (as shown in
Figure9). The greater the plastic deformation energy will be required for the crack propagation of C70S6. As a result,
the cracking force of C70S6 is higher. While 36MnVS4's plastic deformation is small and the stress concentration is
more pronounced, 36MnVS4's cracking force is relatively smaller. This is the reason why 36MNVS4 cracks sooner
than C70S6 under the same fracture-splitting conditions.

Fig.12. The curve of fracture-splitting force and time

3.2.2 The stress and strain field during the crack propagation
For a more complete analysis of the crack propagation process, the mechanics fields of four moments during the
crack propagation process are extracted: t1 (early crack propagation), t2 (extended to near the bolt hole), t3 (almost
through the bolt hole), and t4 (the end of crack propagation). The corresponding times of the 36MnVS4 connecting

Author Accepted Manuscript

rod are: t1=7.660×10-3 s, t2=7.661×10-3 s, t3=7.665×10-3 s and t4=7.670×10-3 s. The C70S6 connecting rod times are
t1=11.553×10-3 s, t2=11.555×10-3 s, t3=11.555×10-3 s and t4=11.561×10-3 s。
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

The first principal stress distribution corresponding to the four moments is shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that
the stress state of the two materials in the crack propagation process are very similar. The first principal stress is
150∼400 MPa and symmetrical about the theoretical crack surface. High-stress zones are mostly concentrated near
the crack tip. At t1, the stress concentration of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod at the crack tip is more pronounced than
that of the C70S6 connecting rod, and the compressive stress acting on the outer side of the big end is smaller. At t2
and t3, the stress distribution of the crack tip along the bolt hole is very similar, the stress in most of the connecting
rod is rapidly released, and the value is low. In contrast, the stress concentration near the crack tip of the 36MnVS4
is more pronounced and the stress released is faster after crack propagation. At t4, the crack circumvented the bolt
hole and convergence again, and the stress of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods has been released in most
areas. The stress distribution of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is more uniform, and the stress value is also lower. In
addition, it is found that the stress of the crack tip in the second half of the crack propagation process (after t2) is
more concentrated than that of the first half, and the trend of the 36MnVS4 is more pronounced.

(a) C70S6

(b) 36MnVS4
Fig.13. The first principal stress distribution in crack propagation process

(a) C70S6

Author Accepted Manuscript

 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

(b) 36MnVS4
Fig.14. The equivalent strain distribution in crack propagation process
Figure 14 shows the equivalent plastic deformation at the corresponding time. During the crack propagation process,
the equivalent plastic deformation of the 36MnVS4 and C70S6 connecting rods fracture surface are both extremely
small. The equivalent plastic deformation of the C70S6 connecting rod is mainly formed at t1, which is early in the
crack propagation, and the most severe plastic deformation is near the root of the cracking groove. At time t2 and t3,
the crack extends along the bolt hole. Although the edge of the bolt hole is deformed, it is very small compared with
the groove root. At t4, the deformation of the terminal region is also smaller, so the deformation of these zones can
all be ignored. The plastic deformation during the crack propagation process of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is very
similar to that of the C70S6. However, the plastic deformation at the edge of the bolt hole is comparable to that of
the cracker root. This also shows that the plastic deformation process of the 36MnVS4 fracture is relatively unstable,
and more prone to tear defects. Therefore, special attention must be paid to the fracture surface quality of the
36MnVS4 connecting rod, to prevent a decline in the connecting rod accuracy after re-assembly. The serious scaling-
off would affect engine life in the course of work.
3.2.3 Stress strain course of feature points
The feature points are selected near the crack notch as shown in Figure 15. The curves of the stress and plastic strain
of the feature points changed with time, as shown in Figures 16 and 17.

Fig.15. Location of feature points near the notch

Author Accepted Manuscript

（a）C70S6 （b）36MnVS4
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

（a）C70S6 （b）36MnVS4
Fig.16. Feature points stress

（a）C70S6 （b）36MnVS4

（a）C70S6 （b）36MnVS4
Fig.17. Feature points strain
From Figure 16 and 17, the stress of the characteristic points increase linearly with time before the plastic deformation
occurred. When the characteristic points begin to undergo plastic deformation, the plasticity value also increases
linearly, and the stress increase slows down until the connecting rod fracture. In addition, compared with the C70S6,
the 36MnVS4 occurred plastic deformation is late and the time interval of plastic deformation is shorter. Therefore,
the area and value of the plastic deformation of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod are smaller.
From Figure 15, 16, and 17, it can be seen that the first stress of the C70S6 connecting rod from the line f-f ' to the
notch root is greater than the yield stress, which indicates that there is plastic deformation in this area. The largest

Author Accepted Manuscript

value is approximately 0.02689 at the point a. The first stress of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod from the line e-e ' to
the notch root is greater than the yield stress. The maximum value of plastic deformation is approximately 0.01266,
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

also located at point a.

3.2.4 Fracture plastic deformation
The equivalent plastic deformation of the fracture surface is shown in Figure 18. There is no large-scale yield of the
entire fracture surface, and the overall distribution of plastic deformation is similar. In addition to the root of the
cracking groove (A position), the outer edge of the fracture surface (C and D position) and the edge of the bolt hole
(B position) of the connecting rod are all deformed. The maximum plastic deformation of the 36MnVS4 connecting
rod is not located at the root of the cracking groove but at the edge of the bolt hole, while the maximum plastic
deformation zone of the C70S6 connecting rod is located near the root of the cracking groove. In addition, as shown
in Figure18 (a), there is some small deformation and steps in the fracture surface of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod,
but the fracture surface of the C70S6 connecting rod is relatively flat. This indicates that the fracture surface quality
of the C70S6 connecting rod is relatively higher.

(a) 36MnVS4 (b) C70S6

Fig.18. Comparison of the fracture surface-equivalent plastic deformation
4 Experimental verification
Using the fracture-splitting equipment shown in Figure 5, the two connecting rods are fracture-splitting processed to
obtain the fracture surface, as shown in Figure 19. It can be seen that the fracture surface of the C70S6 connecting
rod is more flat. In contrast, the fracture surface of 36MnVS4 connecting rod is not smooth, as there are small steps
and tear. Compared with Figure 18, it is consistent with the finite element results, and it also proves the accuracy of
the selection of the fracture criteria. It is further proved that the sensitivity of the 36MnVS4 material is higher, and
the cracking process of the 36MnVS4connecting rod is more difficult to control and prone to defects.

(a) 36MnVS4

（b）C70S6

Author Accepted Manuscript

Fig.19. Experimental connecting rod fracture surface
5 Conclusions
 Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Friday, August 10, 2018

The grains of the 36MnVS4 refine significantly and significantly improve cutting performance, compared to the
C70S6. The yield strength and tensile strength of the 36MnVS4 increases, and yield strength increase outstanding.
Compared with the C70S6 connecting rod, the 36MnVS4 connecting rod has an earlier crack propagation time and
smaller fracture-splitting force, so the 36MnVS4 has higher gap sensitivity and its fracture surface is more prone to
tear.
Through analysis of the mechanical fields of crack initiation and crack propagation, it is shown that the 36MnVS4
connecting rod is more prone to brittle fracture. However, the crack initiation position of the 36MnVS4 connecting
rod is deeper, and the crack initiation position of the 36MnVS4 connecting rod is relatively more scattered and random.
The crack starting point of the C70S6 is also more unique.
Through test validation, we concluded that the 36MnVS4 has higher notch sensitivity and is consistent with the finite
element results, which verifies the rationality of the selection of fracture criteria. The fracture surface of the 36MnVS4
connecting rod has some deformation and steps, while the fracture surface of the C70S6 connecting rod is more flat.
The fracture surface quality of the C70S6 connecting rod is relatively higher.
Acknowledgment
This research were financially Supported by National Key Research and Development Plan（2016YFD0701102） ，
and National science and technology major special project（2013ZX04002021）.
References
[1] Gu Z , Yang S , Ku S. Fracture splitting technology of automobile engine connecting rod[J]. International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2005, 25, 883-887.
[2] Kou S Q, Gao Y, Gao W Q. The influence of auxiliary gases in the optimized analysis of pulsed laser grooving of
a C70S6 connecting rod for fracture splitting [J]. Results in Physics, 2017, 7: 628-635.
[3] Zhang D, Harris S J, McCartney D G, et al. The effect of laser transformation notching on the controlled fracture
of a high carbon (C70S6) steel [J]. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2008, 489(1): 273-284.
[4] Kim H S, Kim T G, Chung T J, et al. Fatigue characteristics of high strength C70S6 and SMA40 steels [J].
Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2010, 527(12): 2813-2818.
[5] Lipp K, Kaufmann H. Die and Powder Forging Materials for Automotive Connecting Rods [J]. MTZ worldwide
eMagazine, 2011, 72(5): 70-75.
[6] Warzel III R, Howe I, Nandivada N, et al. New Materials for Powder Forged Connecting Rods [J]. 2009.
[7] Zhiqing Zhang. Numerical simulation and experimental study on effect factors of engine connecting rod fracture
splitting [D]. Changchun: Jilin university, 2007
[8] Capus J. PM progress in automotive applications: from engine to brakes [J]. Metal Powder Report, 2014, 69(5):
31-33.
[9] Irwin G R. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate [J]. Spie Milestone series MS,
1997, 137(167-170): 16.
[10] Yang H, Kou S, Gao W, et al. Analysis on technology and defects of fracture splitting of automobile engine
connecting rod[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 2015, 229(9): 1603-1613.
[11] Shuhua Mo, Yonghao Yu, Jiajie Wang. Engineering material mechanical properties [M]. Beijing:
Peking university press, 2013.

Author Accepted Manuscript