Modeling and Simulation of Material Type Effects on the Mechanical Behavior of Crankshafts in Internal Combustion Engines

Abstract

This research aims to study the mechanical behavior of the materials most commonly used in crankshaft manufacturing by designing a four-piston crankshaft, analyzing the stresses and displacements resulting from the applied load, and determining vibration frequencies. Additionally, this study examines the thermal behavior of the crankshaft. For this purpose, a three-dimensional model of the crankshaft was designed using CATIA V5 R18 software, and finite element analysis was subsequently performed using ANSYS 2019 R1 software under static, dynamic, and thermal conditions with four different materials in various orientations. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed design, it was compared with a reference design in terms of stresses and displacements. This study also explores improvements in crankshaft geometry and shape. The results indicate that selecting the appropriate material for the working conditions and optimizing the geometry and shape enhance engine performance and reduce the crankshaft’s weight by 20%. The findings were validated by comparing the designs, which support increased productivity and improved durability.

1. Introduction

Energy transmission systems in mechanical industries, particularly in automotive machinery, require durable materials with appropriate properties to ensure optimal performance during energy transmission. The materials used in crankshafts must have adequate bearing capacity and high yield limits, enabling them to withstand fatigue in power transmission elements [1]. The crankshaft is one of the most crucial moving parts in internal combustion engines. It converts the reciprocating movement of the piston into rotational movement. It also includes fixed central axes that rotate in place and movable eccentric axes to which the connecting rods are mounted [2]. Research has focused on increasing the yield and extending the lifespan of the crankshaft. Consequently, many studies have been conducted. One study aimed at this objective examined different modeling methods using a virtual FEV engine and discussed the variations between the results of these techniques to calculate crankshaft durability and improve efficiency [3]. The study also addressed weight and cost reduction for forged steel crankshafts, including dynamic analysis [4]. Researchers have designed and developed crankshafts capable of withstanding cyclic loads without failure, which is crucial for industrial applications. The goal is to manufacture crankshafts that are both lightweight and highly fatigue-resistant, resulting in lighter, more efficient components [5,6]. Consequently, optimal crankshaft design receives significant attention, making it vital in the manufacturing sector to ensure durability and cost-effectiveness [7]. Therefore, optimized crankshaft design is an effective approach to increase fuel efficiency and reduce overall engine costs. It has been observed that during engine operation, energy pulses occur at various points within the crankshaft, causing vibrations. If energy is not properly controlled, it may lead to crankshaft failure [8]. As a result, crankshafts are continuously designed and developed to enhance their efficiency in bearing cyclic loads without collapsing and to achieve reduced weight [9]. Lighter crankshafts offer higher efficiency and greater energy production [10].

The aim of this research is to compare the most commonly used materials for crankshafts and investigate the impact of material selection and design geometry on crankshaft performance. Specifically, this study examines the vibration and thermal characteristics to identify the optimal material and design for crankshaft applications. The research includes a static analysis to determine maximum stress and deformation, along with an exploration of natural frequencies, six mode shapes, and thermal behavior. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for improving current crankshaft designs and selecting the most suitable materials. In the ongoing effort to enhance crankshaft performance in internal combustion engines—aiming to increase efficiency, extend lifespan, and reduce weight—this study plays a crucial role. It explores the effect of different materials on stresses, displacements, thermal stresses, and vibratory conditions experienced by the crankshaft. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the crankshaft was developed to analyze the effects of varying stress types, displacements, load transfer behaviors, dynamic and thermal responses, and the implications of weight reduction on crankshaft performance. The significance of this research lies in its potential to guide the optimization of crankshaft design, contributing to advancements in engine performance by providing a clearer understanding of how material properties and design choices influence crankshaft durability, efficiency, and overall functionality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Crankshaft Manufacturing Material

Based on the above studies and research, the most prominent challenge in selecting a three-dimensional model of the crankshaft lies in choosing a material that exhibits the lowest stresses and high resistance to deformation. The goal is to achieve the desired mechanical properties, such as high rigidity and durability, while also evaluating the forces resulting from the loads distributed along the length of the crankshaft. To address this, the performance of four different materials used in crankshaft manufacturing will be compared:

• Structural Steel: Chemically, structural steel consists of iron, carbon, and other elements such as manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, and silicon in varying amounts depending on the grade. The carbon content typically ranges from 0.15% to 0.30%;
• Aluminum Alloy 7475: This is a wrought alloy with a high zinc content. It also contains magnesium, silicon, and chromium. The 7475 alloy cannot be welded and has more spring back due to its strength;
• Cast Iron: Most cast irons have a chemical composition of 2.5–4.0% carbon, 1–3% silicon, with the remainder being iron;
• Stainless Steel EN308: This alloy contains 20% chromium, 66% iron, 2% manganese, and 11% nickel. It is a stainless steel with high resistance.

Table 1. Mechanical and thermal properties (Aluminum Alloy 7475, Cast Iron, Stainless steel EN 308, Structural Steel).

Material Properties	Stainless Steel EN 308	Cast Iron	Aluminum Alloy 7475	Structural Steel
Density (kg/m3)	7850	7200	2810	7850
Poisson’s ratio	0.29	0.28	0.33	0.3
Young’s modulus (GPa)	205	110	71.7	200
Yield stress (MPa)	240	220	490	280
Thermal conductivity (W/m°C)	426	50	163	60.5
Specific heat capacity (J/kg°C)	473	540	880	434

shows the mechanical and thermal properties of these materials [1,9,11,12,13,14,15,16].

2.2. The Three-Dimensional Model Generation

The three-part assembly model of the crankshaft was created using CATIA V5 R18, an integrated design software developed by Dassault Systèmes. CATIA is part of a comprehensive product life cycle management (PLM) system that supports multiple stages of product development, from design (CAD) to manufacturing (CAM). It also facilitates collaborative engineering across various disciplines, including shape design, mechanical engineering, and systems engineering. Figure 1 illustrates the three-dimensional model of the crankshaft, while

Table 2. Dimensions of the crankshaft.

Parameter	Value
Crank pin radius	60 mm
Shaft diameter	90 mm
Thickness of the crank web	50 mm
Length of the crank pin	197 mm
Maximum pressure	35 bar

presents the dimensions of the crankshaft, as referenced in the study [11].

2.3. Finite Element Analysis

Each part of the crankshaft must withstand both tensile and compressive loads, with stresses and deflections kept within permissible limits. An ideal contact pair must be defined, and the component parts must be properly connected to each other. The model is then exported as an IGS file, which is imported into the ANSYS 19 R1 environment for finite element analysis (FEA) to verify the validity of the model. For the volumetric mesh of the component under study, a tetrahedral mesh was chosen as the most suitable for the design, and the model was subsequently prepared for analysis. To ensure the accuracy of the results, the convergence analysis was carried out as shown in Figure 2 and

Table 3. Convergence and grid independence.

Solution	Von Mises Stress Max (MPa)	Change Percentage	Nodes	Elements
1	15.5964	-	30,149	10,311
2	28.8821	46%	98,115	30,789
3	42.4741	32%	139,611	80,936
4	51.8863	18.14%	213,150	103,628
5	56.7250	5.83%	427,888	249,630
6	57.7201	0.84%	762,351	563,821

, where the number of elements obtained became the change in the value of the von Mises stress less than 1% and, accordingly, the selection was made so that total number of mesh elements reached 249,630, with 427,888 nodes.

In addition, two different sources of load are acting on the crankshaft. The inertia of the rotating components (such as the connecting rod) applies forces to the crankshaft, and this force increases with increasing engine speed, as this force is directly related to the speed Rotation and acceleration of rotating components. The second source of load is the force applied to the crankshaft due to the combustion of gas in the cylinder [15]. Determining the boundary conditions has an important role in finite element analysis, as the crankshaft was installed and pressure was applied to the upper part of the crankshaft at 3.5 MPa, and pressure was applied in all angles, as in

Table 4. Comparison of displacement values, maximum stress, and safety factor for the crankshaft under pressure 35 bar.

Crank Angle (Deg)	Pressure (bar)	The Design within This Study			Design within the Reference Study [11]			Low Percentage Von Mises Stress Max (MPa)	Low Percentage Deformation Max (mm)
		Deformation Max (mm)	Von Mises Stress Max (MPa)	Safety Factor	Deformation Max (mm)	Von Mises Stress Max (MPa)	Safety Factor
		Structural Steel			Structural Steel
0	35	0.0145	56.725	4.9360	0.0146	66.82	4.1903	17.7%	0.6%
30	30.3	0.0125	49.108	5.7017	0.0125	57.27	4.8891	16.6%	0%
60	17.5	0.0073	28.363	9.872	0.0073	33.41	8.3807	17.7%	0%
90	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	0%	0%
120	−17.5	0.0073	28.363	9.872	0.0073	33.41	8.3807	17.7%	0%
150	−30.3	0.0126	49.108	5.7017	0.0125	57.27	4.8891	16.6%	0%
180	−35	0.0145	56.725	4.9360	0.0146	66.82	4.1903	17.7%	0.6%
210	−30.3	0.0126	49.108	5.7017	0.0125	57.27	4.8891	16.6%	0%
240	−17.5	0.0073	28.363	9.872	0.0073	33.41	8.3807	17.7%	0%
270	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	0%	0%
300	17.5	0.0073	28.363	9.872	0.0073	33.41	8.3807	17.7%	0%
330	30.3	0.0126	49.108	5.7017	0.0125	57.27	4.8891	16.6%	0%
360	35	0.0145	56.725	4.9360	0.0146	66.82	4.1903	17.7%	0.6%

and Figure 3 [11]. Figure 4 shows the finite element model of the crankshaft and the boundary conditions given to the model for analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Design Evaluation

To achieve the optimal crankshaft design, this design was compared with the one in the reference study [11], focusing on stresses and displacements, as well as the material used in manufacturing. The goal was to evaluate the design in terms of quality and efficiency, ensuring the use of a crankshaft with safe specifications and high production standards. The measurements and design results from the reference study were applied to our design, as illustrated in Figure 5. Table 4 provides a comparison between the two crankshaft designs.

The stress and displacement analysis of structural steel showed that our design outperformed the design in the reference study. Furthermore, the design was validated through stress calculations using both the theoretical method found in the reference study [11,17,18,19] and the finite element method in both the reference study and our analysis.

Table 5. Comparison between the Theoretical and practical results.

Type of Stress	The Design within this Study Using ANSYS	Design within the Reference Study of Sandya et al. [11] Using ANSYS	Theoretical Results
Von-Mises stress (N/mm2)	56.725	66.82	80.56

presents the theoretical and practical results using the finite element method.

3.2. Static Analysis

3.2.1. Von Mises Stress

Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the results of the equivalent Von Mises stress analysis under loading conditions for the four materials used in this research, conducted using ANSYS (2019 R1) software. The applied pressure was set at 3.5 MPa. The study, which modeled the mechanical behavior of the crankshaft using the finite element (FE) method, shows that the crankshaft made from Aluminium Alloy 7475 exhibits the lowest equivalent Von Mises stress compared to the other materials, with a maximum stress of 55.071 MPa. As a result, Aluminium Alloy 7475 emerges as the best material in terms of stress reduction in the crankshaft, with the maximum stress occurring between the crankshaft bearing and the balance weight. Structural Steel follows closely as the second-best material, with a maximum stress of 56.725 MPa. The stress value for Structural Steel increased by 1.654 MPa compared to Aluminium Alloy 7475, a 3% increase. Stainless Steel EN 308 showed a maximum stress value of 57.273 MPa, representing an increase of 2.202 MPa or 4% compared to Aluminium Alloy 7475. Finally, Cast Iron exhibited the highest stress value among the materials, at 57.795 MPa, an increase of 2.724 MPa or 5% over Aluminium Alloy 7475. These comparisons are summarized in

Table 6. The effect of the type of crankshaft material on the maximum values of stresses and displacements.

Crank Angle (Deg)	Pressure (bar)	Material	Max Deformation (mm)	Von Mises Stress (MPa) Max
0	35	Structural Steel	0.0145	56.725
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0041	55.071
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0141	57.273
		Cast Iron	0.0263	57.795
30	30.3	Structural Steel	0.0125	49.108
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0035	47.675
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0122	49.582
		Cast Iron	0.0227	50.034
60	17.5	Structural Steel	0.0073	28.363
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0021	27.535
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0071	28.637
		Cast Iron	0.0131	28.897
90	0	Structural Steel	0	0
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0	0
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0	0
		Cast Iron	0	0
120	−17.5	Structural Steel	0.0073	28.363
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0035	47.675
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0071	28.637
		Cast Iron	0.0131	28.897
150	−30.3	Structural Steel	0.0126	49.108
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0035	47.675
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0122	49.582
		Cast Iron	0.0227	50.034
180	−35	Structural Steel	0.0145	56.725
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0041	55.071
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0141	57.273
		Cast Iron	0.0263	57.795
210	−30.3	Structural Steel	0.0126	49.108
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0035	47.675
		Stainless steel EN 308	0.0122	49.582
		Cast Iron	0.0227	50.034
240	−17.5	Structural Steel	0.0073	28.363
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0021	27.535
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0071	28.637
		Cast Iron	0.0131	28.897
270	0	Structural Steel	0	0
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0	0
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0	0
		Cast Iron	0	0
300	17.5	Structural Steel	0.0073	28.363
		Aluminum Alloy7475	0.0021	27.535
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0071	28.637
		Cast Iron	0.0131	28.897
330	30.3	Structural Steel	0.0126	49.108
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0035	47.675
		Stainless steel EN 308	0.0122	49.582
		Cast Iron	0.0227	50.034
360	35	Structural Steel	0.0145	56.725
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	0.0041	55.071
		Stainless Steel EN 308	0.0141	57.273
		Cast Iron	0.0263	57.795

.

3.2.2. Displacement Analysis

Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the results of the displacement analysis under loading conditions for the four materials using ANSYS software. The applied force was set at 3.5 MPa. The analysis shows that Aluminum Alloy 7475 exhibits the lowest displacement compared to the other materials, with a maximum displacement of 0.0041 mm. The maximum displacement occurs in the area between the counterweight and the middle of the piston rod bearing. Therefore, Aluminum Alloy 7475 proves to be the most effective material in terms of minimizing displacement. Stainless Steel EN 308 follows as the second-best material, with a maximum displacement of 0.0141 mm, which is 0.01 mm (2.43%) higher than that of Aluminum Alloy 7475. Structural Steel exhibits a displacement value of 0.0145 mm, showing an increase of 0.0104 mm (2.53%) compared to Aluminum Alloy 7475. Cast Iron has the highest displacement value, at 0.0263 mm, representing an increase of 0.0222 mm (5.414%) over Aluminum Alloy 7475. These comparisons are summarized in Table 6.

Table 7. Safety factor for the studied materials.

Crank Angle (Deg)	Pressure (bar)	Material	Safety Factor $\mathbf{FOS}=\mathit{\sigma }\mathit{y}/\mathit{\sigma }$
0	35	Structural Steel	4.9360
		Aluminum Alloy 7475	8.897
		Stainless steel EN 308	4.1904
		Cast Iron	3.8065

shows the safety factor values for the studied materials, where the safety factor is calculated as the ratio of yield stress to von Mises stress.

3.3. Vibration Behavior Analysis

Vibration analysis involves studying the dynamic characteristics of structures under the influence of induced vibrations in the crankshaft, which is supported at two fixed points, as shown in Figure 10. The dynamic interaction between a component and its supporting structure is crucial, as structural damage or failure can occur if the operating frequency of the component coincides with one of the structure’s natural frequencies. A modal analysis was performed using ANSYS software to determine the vibration characteristics of the crankshaft. Notably, low-frequency vibrations are the primary source of engine vibration. This indicates that low frequencies have a greater impact on the system’s response, making them more significant for the crankshaft.

Accordingly, vibration analysis was conducted to measure the total deformation under six different conditions. The results for frequency values and total deformations are presented in Figure 11, as well as in

Table 8. Frequency and total distortion values Structural Steel.

Modal No.	Frequency (Hz)	Total Deformation (mm)
1	60.309	2.2185
2	95.419	2.0404
3	106.77	3.2644
4	142	3.7015
5	162.94	2.3977
6	214.46	2.453

,

Table 9. Frequency and total distortion values Aluminum Alloy 7475.

Modal No.	Frequency (Hz)	Total Deformation (mm)
1	190.37	3.7133
2	303.58	3.4104
3	339.74	5.4568
4	445.53	6.1975
5	514.22	4.021
6	682.46	4.0997

,

Table 10. Frequency and total distortion values cast iron.

Modal No.	Frequency (Hz)	Total Deformation (mm)
1	46.791	2.3143
2	73.654	2.1305
3	82.397	3.4083
4	110.61	3.8606
5	126.43	2.498
6	165.52	2.5615

and

Table 11. Frequency and total distortion values Stainless Steel EN 308.

Modal No.	Frequency (Hz)	Total Deformation (mm)
1	61.115	2.2174
2	96.447	2.0404
3	107.91	3.2643
4	144.19	3.6994
5	165.13	2.395
6	216.76	2.4531

. For the materials used in the study, Cast Iron exhibited lower frequency values compared to the other materials, with a frequency of 165.52 Hz. On the other hand, Structural Steel demonstrated the lowest total deformation, with a value of 2.453 mm.

3.4. Thermal Behavior Analysis

Figure 12 illustrates the boundary conditions for the thermal behavior analysis, which involves measuring changes in thermal properties when the material is exposed to varying temperatures. The results indicate that the maximum temperature output of 225 W/m² for all materials is observed at the rod axis, as shown in Figure 13. Table 10 presents the results of the thermal behavior analysis for the materials studied, focusing on the specified column.

The results indicate that Cast Iron had the lowest maximum heat flow, with a value of 1.4105 W/mm² compared to the other materials studied. Structural Steel followed with a heat flow of 1.6982 W/mm², while Aluminium Alloy 7475 ranked third with 4.3723 W/mm². Stainless Steel EN 308 exhibited the highest heat flux at 10.361 W/mm², which was recorded on both sides of the crankshaft (around the connecting rod axis). The remaining areas showed normal low temperatures, as illustrated in Figure 14 and summarized in

Table 12. Materials comparison table for thermal analysis.

Material	Structural Steel	Aluminum Alloy 7475	Cast Iron	Stainless Steel EN 308
Temperature (°C)	225	225	225	225
Convection (W/mm2)	1.6982	4.3723	1.4105	10.361

.

3.5. Advanced Weight Loss Concepts

To reduce weight through crankshaft geometry redesign, it has been observed that certain areas of the crankshaft, such as the counterweight blocks and the crankshaft webs, experience minimal pressure. However, dynamic balancing of the crankshaft remains crucial, as counterweight blocks play a significant role in maintaining balance. Shape optimization techniques were applied to various locations of the crankshaft to achieve weight reduction. Material was removed from the counterweights and external geometric shape of the crankshaft, as illustrated in Figure 15. This redesign, based on the first concept, resulted in a reduced crankshaft weight.

The second concept, from the reference study [20], showed that the von Mises stress for Structural Steel was 67.298 MPa, and the maximum displacement was 0.0149 mm. The results for stresses and displacements of the improved crankshaft are presented in Figure 16 and

Table 13. Summary of results for stresses and displacements of the crankshaft.

Crank Angle (Deg)	Pressure (bar)	Max Deformation (mm)	Max von Mises Stress (MPa)
0	35	0.0149	67.298
30	30.3	0.0129	58.261
60	17.5	0.0075	33.649
90	0	0	0
120	−17.5	0.0075	33.649
150	−30.3	0.0129	58.261
180	−35	0.0149	67.298
210	−30.3	0.0129	58.261
240	−17.5	0.0075	33.649
270	0	0	0
300	17.5	0.0075	33.649
330	30.3	0.0129	58.261
360	35	0.0149	67.298

.

Figure 17 presents the vibration analysis of the improved crankshaft across six modes. In the first mode, the peak vibration frequency was 50.255 Hz, with a total deformation value of 2.3384 mm.

Table 14. Frequency and total distortion values of Structural Steel.

Modal Orders	Frequency (Hz)	Total Deformation (mm)
1	50.255	2.3384
2	72.994	2.1074
3	77.479	3.5969
4	134.13	4.0507
5	138.95	2.5467
6	153.4	2.6443

summarizes the frequency and total deformation results for Structural Steel.

Figure 18 presents the thermal analysis of the improved crankshaft. The results indicate that the maximum output temperature for Structural Steel, measured at 225 W/m², is observed at the connecting rod axis (a). Additionally, the maximum heat flow (b) was 2.5969 W/mm².

4. Discussion

The Finite Element Method (FEM) is a powerful numerical technique effectively used in complex analyses. In the context of ongoing research, FEM has been employed to develop and optimize facility mechanisms, improve performance, and enhance productivity while reducing weight, as demonstrated by Sandya et al. [11]. Their study, which involved analyzing the crankshaft with varying pressure angles, confirmed the validity of the design. The research found that the stress and displacement values were optimal, showing a 17.7% reduction in stress and a 0.6% reduction in displacement compared to commonly used materials. This improvement is attributed to the design shape and the incorporation of lubrication holes. Furthermore, the safety factor of the design was validated, confirming its superiority over previous reference designs in terms of quality and yield stress values.

Mechanical studies aim to improve materials that offer high productivity and effective energy transmission, as durable materials are necessary to ensure appropriate operating conditions. Sandeep et al. [9] compared various aluminum alloys and found that Aluminum Alloy 7475 was the best among those studied. Additionally, Gopal et al. [21] compared Aluminum Alloy with Stainless Steel EN 308 and concluded that Aluminum Alloy was superior in terms of stress values. In terms of displacement, this research also showed that Aluminum Alloy 7475 is the best compared to the other materials studied regarding both stress and displacement values. This superiority can be attributed to its structural composition, which includes a high weight percentage of zinc, as well as magnesium, silicon, and chromium, all contributing to its strength.

In terms of the vibration study, we observed that Cast Iron exhibits low-frequency values, making it the best material among those studied due to its properties. Additionally, the total distortion values for Structural Steel are the lowest, which is consistent with the results reported by Chaitanya Ravivarma et al. [1]. This allows for the selection of the most suitable material, which enhances the lifespan of the crankshaft and improves engine performance under various conditions. Ram et al. [2] conducted a study on the thermal behavior and performance evaluation of the crankshaft for two materials: forged steel and composite material. The study found that the output temperature was 225 W/m², and the heat flow was 59.131 W/m² for a single cylinder. In contrast, our research showed an output temperature of 225 W/m² and a heat flow of 1.4105 W/mm² for four cylinders. Cast Iron, which exhibited the lowest heat flow among the materials studied, supports the selection of appropriate materials under thermal conditions. Shahane et al. [8] investigated crankshaft improvement by reducing weight through material removal from the web area and balancing blocks. Their results indicated higher stress values in the first case, with reduced frequency values and increased total deformation, despite a 2.9% reduction in weight. In contrast, Thejasree et al. [20] studied three basic concepts for reducing the weight of the crankshaft. The results indicated an increase in stress values, while the weight percentage was reduced by 12.8%. In this research, both the first and second concepts were applied together. As a result, stress values increased, but the weight percentage was reduced by 20%, and frequency values decreased. This can be explained by the fact that a decrease in mass leads to reduced stiffness, which in turn results in lower frequency values. Additionally, the results showed a decrease in total deformation and heat flow compared to the original design.

5. Conclusions

In this research, an analytical study was conducted to examine the effect of the material type used for the crankshaft on its static and dynamic behavior. This study included an analysis of the stresses and displacements in the crankshaft, as well as its vibrational and thermal behavior, using the finite element method under various loading conditions. Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The current design was compared with designs from reference studies regarding stresses and displacements. The comparison with the most commonly used material in manufacturing revealed that the current design is optimal, showing a 17.7% reduction in stress values and confirming an adequate safety factor;
• Aluminum Alloy 7475 is identified as the best material for stress and displacement values, demonstrating lower values compared to other materials used in manufacturing;
• Cast Iron excels in terms of heat flow to the crankshaft compared to other materials used in manufacturing;
• Cast Iron also shows the best performance in terms of low vibration frequencies, while Structural Steel exhibited very low total deformation values under applied loads;
• Improvements made through geometric and shape optimization resulted in a 20% reduction in crankshaft weight. Although this modification led to increased stress and displacement values, it also contributed to a reduction in frequency values compared to the current design.

Based on the results obtained in this research and the observed differences in the mechanical behavior of each material, it is recommended that a new material characterized by low density and excellent mechanical properties be developed. This would enhance productivity, improve energy efficiency, and reduce torsion and bending. Additionally, further research should focus on optimizing the crankshaft design to ensure the highest engine performance and efficiency.