Analysis of Elastomeric Automotive CV Boot Fatigue

Performance using the Endurica fatigue solver

J.D. Suter, B. J. Beutler, W. V. Mars

Endurica LLC

Abstract

Constant velocity joints on front-wheel drive vehicles require lubrication and protection from
contamination. A rubber CV boot provides these functions, containing the lubricant and keeping out
debris. The boot can fail from fatigue, leading to issues with the joints. Using Abaqus to model the boot
in operation, and Endurica to calculate fatigue life, boots with different design features (material, fillet
radius, wall thickness, and preloading in compression or tension) are analyzed. One cycle is taken to be
one rotation of the boot while it is bent at a specified turning angle. Of the cases analyzed, the design
giving maximum fatigue life is made out of polychloroprene 50 HAF, with a fillet radius of 1mm, a wall
thickness of 2mm, and a compressive pre-displacement of 5mm.

Background

Constant velocity joints (see Figure 1) are used to transfer torque while maintaining a constant speed.
Front wheel drive vehicles use these joints when transferring energy to the drive wheels. In the vehicle,
CV joints connect the transmission to the half shafts, and again from the half shafts to the wheels.
These joints accommodate the up and down motion of the suspension and the back and forth turning of
the wheels while maintaining a comfortable driving experience. Ball joints are usually used for the
connection between drive wheels and half shafts. These joints need to be constantly lubricated and stay
free of debris to run smoothly and have a long life. A flexible rubber boot is installed around the joint
and packed full of grease to solve both the problem of lubrication and the problem of debris. A CV joint
failing is most commonly caused when the CV joint boot tears. This tear allows debris to enter into the
joint and allows the grease to escape. Following the failure of the boot, the joint will typically wear
much faster, leading first to clicking noises while turning, and finally - if the problem is not addressed –
complete failure of the joint due to excessive wear. Durability of the CV joint boot design is a critical
design requirement.
 𝑧

𝑥 𝑦

Figure 1. Schematic showing rubber CV Joint Boot (black).

Objectives

Model a CV boot using Abaqus and calculate fatigue life using Endurica to analyze lifetimes of different
configurations of a CV boot. Through the analysis, a most favorable boot will be determined.
Favorability is determined solely by longest fatigue life. Characteristics to analyze and compare are:

 Differences in material
 Differences in shape geometries and fillet radii
 Differences in boot thickness
 Effects of tension and compression in the boot

Approach

Preprocessing with Abaqus:

As illustrated in Figure 2, each model was created with three parts: a basic front wheel drive outer
rubber boot deformable solid, a rigid joint housing, and a rigid half shaft. An Abaqus assembly is created
which ties the inside of the base of the boot to the joint housing and the inside of the top of the boot to
the shaft. The shaft extrudes into the y direction, the vertical is taken to be in the z direction, and the
direction of the vehicle’s path is taken to be in the x direction.

The analysis was made in two steps, shown in Figure 3. The joint housing is first rotated about the z axis
to simulate turning while the shaft is fixed. Next, the housing and shaft spin one full rotation about their
respective axes to simulate the wheel rotation while the turning angle is held constant. Each model is
run at turning angles of 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 degrees to generate plots of turning angle versus
fatigue life. One cycle is taken to be the second step, or one full rotation at the turning angle. The
deformed boot is depicted in Figure 4.
 Joint housing CV Boot Step 1

Drive shaft

Step 2

Figure 2. CV joint assembly showing housing, boot, and drive shaft. Figure 3. Analysis Steps.

Comparisons:

Two elastomers commonly used in making

different CV boots are EPDM and
polychloroprene. Here, two different EPDM
and two different polychloroprene materials
are considered: EPDM with 30 phr carbon
black, EPDM with 50 phr carbon black,
polychloroprene with 50 phr HAF black, and
polychloroprene with 50 phr of MT black.
Material properties used for the 4 cases
analyzed are summarized in Table 1.

For comparing different shape geometries, a Figure 4. Boot in deformed configuration, showing contours of
maximum principal strain.
boot with fillet edges of 4mm and a boot with
fillet edges of 1mm were used. One of the
EPDM materials is used for both geometries and one of the polychloroprene materials is used for both
geometries for a total of four models.

For comparing different wall thicknesses, a boot with a thickness of 3mm and a boot with a thickness of
2mm were used.

The boot can be pre-loaded in tension or compression. These options were considered by displacing the
shaft during the first step of the analysis. For tension, the shaft is pulled out in the y axis 5mm and
10mm. For compression, the shaft is pushed down in the y axis 5mm and 10mm. Zero displacement in
the shaft is also included as a comparison. These comparisons are intended to observe the effects of
installing the boot when it is clamped in place while being compressed or clamped in place while being
pulled in tension.
Table 1. Material properties used in fatigue analysis of the CV boot.

EPDM+30 phr EPDM+50 phr CR+50phr HAF CR+50phr MT

Stress-strain Ogden Ogden Neo-Hookean Neo-Hookean
model Mu1 = 0.922352 MPa Mu1 = 1.683 MPa C10 = 0.25 C10 = 0.25
Mu2 = 0.092235 MPa Mu2 = 0.1683 MPa Bulk Modulus = 3000 Bulk Modulus = 3000
Mu3 = 0.003689 MPa Mu3 = 0.006732 MPa MPa MPa
Alpha1 = 2 Alpha1 = 2
Alpha2 = -2 Alpha2 = -2
Alpha3 = 8 Alpha3 = 8
Bulk Modulus = 3000 Bulk Modulus = 3000
MPa MPa
Fatigue model Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas
RC = 0.31622 RC = 0.31622 RC = 0.01 mm/cycle RC = 0.01 mm/cycle
mm/cycle mm/cycle Tcritical = 40.5 Tcritical = 74.157
Tcritical = 2.317 Tcritical = 2.932 kJ/m^2 kJ/m^2
kJ/m^2 kJ/m^2 F0 = 3.05 F0 = 2.78
F0 = 6.157 F0 = 5.591 FlawCrit = 1 mm FlawCrit = 1 mm
FlawCrit = 1 mm FlawCrit = 1 mm TempCoef = 0.0061 TempCoef = 0.0061
TempCoef = 0.082 TempCoef = 0.082 1/degC 1/degC
1/degC 1/degC TempRef = 20 degC TempRef = 20 degC
TempRef = 60 degC TempRef = 60 degC
Crack precursor 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
size, mm

Results

The failure mode in all cases was the initiation of cracking on the external free surface, in the crease
between segments of the boot, as shown in Figure 5.
 Figure 5. CV boot failure mode. Model is colored according to the logarithm of fatigue life, with red representing the shortest
life, and blue representing the longest life.

From comparing these four different elastomer materials, the polychloroprene material life decreases
less rapidly as the turning angle increases compared to the EPDM material. The less rapid decrease is
the more favorable characteristic. Between the two polychloroprene materials, CR 50 HAF has the
higher life at every angle analyzed and is the most favorable material analyzed.

Table 2. Analysis results for 4 different boot materials.

Fatigue Life, revolutions

Angle (°) EPDM CB 30phr EPDM CB 50phr CR 50 HAF CR 50 MT
5 1.33E+16 6.89E+13 8.54E+15 2.16E+15
10 2.94E+13 3.62E+10 1.56E+14 5.09E+13
15 2.59E+11 4.90E+08 1.51E+13 6.03E+12
20 1.03E+10 2.61E+07 3.05E+12 1.41E+12
25 8.41E+08 2.66E+06 8.98E+11 4.61E+11
30 1.20E+08 4.50E+05 3.46E+11 1.93E+11
35 2.99E+07 1.27E+05 1.76E+11 1.04E+11
 Material Comparison
1.E+17
1.E+16
1.E+15
1.E+14
1.E+13
1.E+12 EPDM CB 30phr
Life

1.E+11 EPDM CB 50phr

1.E+10 CR 50 HAF
1.E+09
CR 50 MT
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle (°)

Figure 6. Fatigue life, in revolutions, as a function of joint angle, for variations of boot compound.

When comparing shape geometry, for both materials analyzed, the “sharp” boots with a fillet radius of
1mm had longer lives than the boots with fillet radius of 4mm. At low turning angles, the EPDM sharp
boot performed best, but at higher turning angles, this boot performs poorly. Overall, the CR sharp boot
is the most favorable of the different geometries compared. The sharper edges allow the boot to fold to
a configuration with less strain when in compression than compared with more rounded edges.

Table 3. Analysis results for sharp and filleted radii.

Fatigue Life, revolutions

Angle (°) EPDM Fillet EPDM Sharp CR Fillet CR Sharp
5 1.33E+16 3.90E+16 8.54E+15 2.99E+16
10 2.94E+13 2.98E+15 1.56E+14 1.73E+15
15 2.59E+11 4.81E+13 1.51E+13 2.18E+14
20 1.03E+10 3.98E+12 3.05E+12 6.39E+13
25 8.41E+08 5.65E+11 8.98E+11 2.33E+13
30 1.20E+08 4.80E+10 3.46E+11 7.03E+12
35 2.99E+07 7.84E+08 1.76E+11 8.79E+11
 Shape Geometry Comparison
1.E+17
1.E+16
1.E+15
1.E+14
1.E+13
1.E+12 EPDM fillet
Life

1.E+11 EPDM sharp

1.E+10 CR fillet
1.E+09
CR sharp
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle (°)

Figure 7. Fatigue life, in revolutions, as a function of joint angle, for variations of fillet radius.

When comparing the thickness of boots in both materials, lowering the thickness from 3mm to 2mm
results in a slight increase in life at all turning angles. The CR 2mm boot is the most favorable of the
various boots analyzed. Better performance of the thinner boot is associated with smaller bending
strains.

Table 4. Analysis results for effect of wall thickness.

Fatigue Life, revolutions

Angle (°) EPDM 3mm EPDM 2mm CR 3mm CR 2mm
5 1.33E+16 1.24E+16 8.54E+15 8.17E+15
10 2.94E+13 4.35E+13 1.56E+14 2.08E+14
15 2.59E+11 5.70E+11 1.51E+13 2.49E+13
20 1.03E+10 2.69E+10 3.05E+12 5.62E+12
25 8.41E+08 2.49E+09 8.98E+11 1.74E+12
30 1.20E+08 3.56E+08 3.46E+11 6.65E+11
35 2.99E+07 7.63E+07 1.76E+11 3.11E+11
 Thickness Comparison
1.E+17
1.E+16
1.E+15
1.E+14
1.E+13
1.E+12 EPDM 3mm
Life

1.E+11 EPDM 2mm

1.E+10 CR 3mm
1.E+09
CR 2mm
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle (°)

Figure 8. Fatigue life, in revolutions, as a function of joint angle, for variations of wall thickness.

When a boot is pre-loaded in tension, the life decreases significantly at all turning angles. The boot with
no initial displacement fails mainly due to tension from the tire being turned at an angle. Since the zero
displaced boot fails in tension from turning, pulling the boot any amount only adds to the problem.
Pushing the boot 5mm into compression helps relieve some of the tension in the turning angle resulting
in a longer life. Pushing the boot 10mm into compression does relieve some of the tension and at high
turning angles, it helps to increase life. However, at lower turning angles, failure is no longer caused by
the turning angle’s tension but is instead caused by the boot being compressed together. At this
compression, the loss of life at low angles outweighs the gain in life at high angles. Therefore, the
compression of 5mm is the most favorable of the tension and compression distances analyzed.

Table 5. Analysis results for effect of tension and compression pre-loads.

Fatigue Life, revolutions

Angle (°) CR 0mm CR 5mm CR 10mm CR -5mm CR -10mm
5 8.54E+15 6.34E+14 7.31E+13 1.02E+16 1.19E+15
10 1.56E+14 3.51E+13 7.96E+12 4.72E+14 2.52E+14
15 1.51E+13 5.02E+12 1.76E+12 4.67E+13 3.61E+13
20 3.05E+12 1.27E+12 5.46E+11 7.27E+12 6.10E+12
25 8.98E+11 4.59E+11 2.28E+11 1.75E+12 1.20E+12
30 3.46E+11 2.01E+11 1.12E+11 6.10E+11 7.93E+11
35 1.76E+11 1.09E+11 5.86E+10 2.93E+11 4.80E+11
 Tension/Compression CR Comparison
1.E+17

1.E+16

1.E+15
CR 0mm
1.E+14
Life

CR 5mm
1.E+13
CR 10mm
1.E+12 CR -5mm

1.E+11 CR -10mm

1.E+10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle (°)

Figure 9. Fatigue life, in revolutions, as a function of joint angle, for variations of boot preloading.

In an effort to develop the most favorable CV boot, the characteristics that gave the highest fatigue lives
are all used in a single boot. These characteristics are CR 50 HAF material, a fillet radius of 1mm, a wall
thickness of 2mm, and a pre-compression of 5mm. This boot was created and analyzed and then
plotted in comparison with the boots that have only the individual favorable characteristics instead of
the combination of all favorable characteristics. As shown in the graph below, the boot with the
combination of most favorable characteristics does indeed perform the best in the analysis test
compared to all other boots analyzed.

Table 6. Analysis results comparing the best cases for each features with a design combining all of the
best features.

Fatigue Life, revolutions

Angle (°) Combination CR Sharp CR 2mm Thick CR 5mm Compressed
5 2.83E+16 2.99E+16 8.17E+15 1.02E+16
10 4.14E+15 1.73E+15 2.08E+14 4.72E+14
15 6.55E+14 2.18E+14 2.49E+13 4.67E+13
20 1.25E+14 6.39E+13 5.62E+12 7.27E+12
25 2.07E+13 2.33E+13 1.74E+12 1.75E+12
30 2.52E+13 7.03E+12 6.6545E+11 6.1018E+11
35 1.06E+13 8.7859E+11 3.1098E+11 2.9312E+11
 Combination of favorable characteristics
1.E+17

1.E+16
CR sharp / 2mm thick
1.E+15
/ 5mm compressed
1.E+14 CR sharp
Life

1.E+13
CR 2mm thick
1.E+12

1.E+11 CR 5mm compressed

1.E+10
0 10 20 30 40
Angle (°)

Figure 10. Fatigue life, in revolutions, as a function of joint angle, comparing best cases for each feature with a design combining
all of the best features.

Conclusion

Using Abaqus software and Endurica’s fatigue life solver, different configurations of rubber CV boots
were analyzed and their fatigue lives were calculated. In terms of fatigue life: Polychloroprene 50 HAF
was found to be the most favorable material that was analyzed; a sharper, smaller fillet radius of 1mm
was found to be the more favorable shape; a thinner boot thickness of 2mm was found to be slightly
more favorable; and an initial compression of 5mm displacement in the boot was found to be the most
favorable of the tension and compression assemblies. Using the most favorable material, fillet radius,
thickness, and compression together to make a single boot resulted in the most favorable boot
analyzed.

About the Authors

Jesse Suter is a 3rd year BSME student at Notre Dame. He completed this analysis project during his
summer internship with Endurica.
Ben Beutler is Endurica’s business development manager. Ben is responsible for meeting customer
durability management needs with Endurica solutions.

Dr. Will Mars is the founder and CEO of Endurica LLC.

About Endurica LLC. Endurica LLC provides pre-prototype solutions for developers seeking durability in elastomer applications.
Endurica is focused on durability and elastomers, and has developed the world’s first numerical fatigue life solver for elastomers.
Our solver is used to predict fatigue life based on the results of Finite Element Analysis. Our solutions include characterization,
software and training for engineers and analysts. The company was founded in 2008. (www.endurica.com)