PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Structural analysis of a bike frame

using multi-scenario design evaluation
Course Name:
Machine design Course

Students Name:
ZAIN AL ABDEEN SHAHEEN 201610105
AHMAD ALASFAR 201710086

Submitted to:
DR.Mohummed Gogazeh
Table of contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 6
STUDY AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 7
STATIC SIMULATION OF BIKEFRAME ................................................................................................................... 8
SIMPLIFY MODEL (TREATED AS BEAMS) .............................................................................................................. 8
Loads.............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Material Properties ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Mesh information - Details .......................................................................................................................... 11
Resultant Forces .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 15
ACCURATE MODEL (TREATED AS SOLIDS AND SURFACES)................................................................................. 16
Model information ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Study properties ........................................................................................................................................... 20
MATERIAL PROPERTIES..................................................................................................................................... 20
FIXTURES ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
PART1:(DEAD LOAD) SITTING CASE .................................................................................................................. 22
LOADS............................................................................................................................................................... 22
MESH INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................................... 24
RESULTANT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 26
DEAD LOADS STUDY RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 27
Stress results ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Displacement results .................................................................................................................................... 28
Factor of safety ............................................................................................................................................ 28
PART2: ACTIVE LOAD(CRUISING) ...................................................................................................................... 28
RESULTANT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................... 29
ACTIVE LOAD STUDY RESULTS WITH ALUMINIUM ALLOY ................................................................................ 30
Stress results ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Displacement results .................................................................................................................................... 31
Factor of safety ............................................................................................................................................ 31
STATIC DESIGN EVALUATION WITH MULTIPLE SCENARIOS ................................................................................ 32
1-Sitting scenario ......................................................................................................................................... 32
2-Cruising scenario ..................................................................................................................................... 33
3-STANDING SCENARIO ..................................................................................................................................... 34
FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF BIKE FRAME (CONSTANT AMPLITUDE) ........................................................................... 35
Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on cursing loads ...................................................................... 36
Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on standing loads..................................................................... 37
Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on sitting loads ........................................................................ 38
FREQUENCY STUDY ........................................................................................................................................... 39
GENERATIVE MODELLING DESIGN ............................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 44
List of figures
FIGURE 1 BEAM STUDY MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT ................................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 2:BEAM STUDY MAXIMUM STRESS ............................................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 3:BEAM STUDY FACTOR OF SAFETY ........................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 4:BEAM AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 5:BEAM AXIAL MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X AXIS........................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 6:BEAM MOMENT DIAGRAM IN Z AXIS....................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 7:EXTREME STRESS VALUE IN EACH BEAM ................................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 8:EXTREME FORCES VALUES FOR EACH BEAM ........................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 9:MODIFIED MODEL................................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 10: FRAME DRAWING ................................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 11:BTM BRAKET ....................................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 12:BACK AXIAL ATTACHMENT .................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 13:SEAT LUG ............................................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 14:HEAD UPPER LUG ................................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 15:HEAD LOWER LUG ................................................................................................................................ 19
FIGURE 16:HEAD TUBE SURFACE ........................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 17:UPPER HEAD SURFACE.......................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 18:CHAIN STAY SURFACE .......................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 19:FIXTURE ............................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 20:ELASTIC CONNECTOR .......................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 21:PART RIDER WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................ 22
FIGURE 22:PART RIDER WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................ 23
FIGURE 23:PART RIDER WEIGHT2 .......................................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 24:3D MESH.............................................................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 253D MESH CONTROL ............................................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 26:ELASTIC SUPPORT REACTION FORCE..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 27: FIXED GEOMETRY REACTION FORCE .................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 28:STRESS RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 29:DEAD DISPLACEMENT RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 28
FIGURE 30:FACTOR OF SAFETY (VON MISES) ......................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 31:TRESCA FACTOR OF SAFETY................................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 32:ELASTIC SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 33:RESTRAINT .......................................................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 34:PART RIDER WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................ 30
FIGURE 35:ACTIVE LOAD RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 31
FIGURE 36: ACTIVE DISPLACEMENT RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 31
FIGURE 37:VON MISES FACTOR OF SAFETY............................................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 38:TRESCA FACTOR OF SAFETY................................................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 39:SITTING STRESS .................................................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 40:SITTING DISPLACEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 41:SITTING FACTOR OF SAFETY ................................................................................................................. 33
FIGURE 42:CRUISING SCENARIO............................................................................................................................. 33
FIGURE 43:CRUISING DISPLACEMENT .................................................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 44:TRESCA FACTOR OF SAFETY................................................................................................................. 34
FIGURE 45:STANDING STRESS ................................................................................................................................ 34
FIGURE 46STANDING DISPLACEMENT .................................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 47STANDING FACTOR OF SAFERY .............................................................................................................. 35
FIGURE 48:DAMAGE PERCENT ............................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 49:LOADING FACTOR ................................................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 50:ESTIMATED LIFE ................................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 51:DAMAGE PERCENT ............................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 52:LOADING FACTOR ................................................................................................................................ 39
FIGURE 53:ESTIMATED LIFE ................................................................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 54:MASS PARTICIPANT .............................................................................................................................. 41
FIGURE 55:FREQUENCY VS MODE.NO..................................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 56:FREQ. VS. EFFECTIVE MASS PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 42

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
Abstract
This report includes several studies that highlight the stresses effects and optimize
the design of a customized bicycle frame using (Solidworks) computer-aided
design software and its FEM analysis package. The research includes two types
of static stress analysis methods the firs is beam treated frame with two
dimensional mech elements which is the simplest and the second one is soled
body and surfaces treated with three-dimensional mixed mesh which is more
accurate. Multi scenarios has been applied to represent the static loads that may
be applied by the rider to investigate which case have the highest impact on the
stress concentration region and base on it the frequency and dynamic analyses
has been applied to study the first 10 mode shapes and its relation with the natural
frequency the result of those several studies has been discussed at the end of each
section. Based on the investigated results generative modelling design has been
applied to some critical components in the frame which have the highest weight
in order to try to reduce its weight with acceptable factor of safety. In general
bicycle frames have to bear a variety of loads and it is needed to ensure the frame
can withstand (static, dynamic loads to move and fatigue strength). This report
studies bicycle frame structure with a purpose to avoid the problem regarding
loads on the structure and to ensure the structure is safe when multiple loads are
applied to it.
Introduction
Bicycle is a simple structure subjected to various types of loads at
different points in the frame. The basic shape and configuration of a typical
upright, or safety bicycle, has changed little since the first chain-driven model
was developed around 1885. [1].

As bicycles are environmentally friendly, safe and are a form of exercise with
many other advantages. The appearance of a bicycle is no longer limited to the
traditional style; research and development have led to ergonomic designs with
low-riding drag, a lightweight frame, greater strength, and improved handling to
meet customized needs.[2]Over the years, the shape of the bicycle hasn't changed
much with much importance given to weight reduction and design optimization
With conforming to the stiffness and strength of the bicycle while reducing the
weight is a challenging proposition in product optimization. Currently, Bicycles
have high strength and high stiffness. With the induction of composites, it is quite
challenging to build a frame that absorbs all the loads without any significant
deformation. Earlier, the task of performing analysis was tedious, but with the
advent of FEM, the laborious tasks are eliminated and lead time in bringing a
product to the market is reduced.[3]

A bike's frame is the central system to support and locate other components of
the bicycle such as Chain-drive system, Handlebar, and steering system, pedal
assembly, seat. For a good performance of the bicycle, various conditions have
to be met such as stability, ride quality, ergonomics to the rider.[10] A bicycle is
a light structure that has to support a much heavier weight, which is the cyclist.
There is considerable need to be taken in the process of making bicycle frames,
which is support loads of cyclists, surrounding wind and friction. A major
concern in analyzing functional mechanical structures is to reliably identify their
dynamic characteristics, their natural frequencies and vibration mode shapes.
These vibration characteristics are needed to achieve effective design and control
of the vibrations of structural components. While designing any mechanical
system or structure, it is important to do structural design and analysis, since it
can predict the mode shapes and the natural frequencies to the expected
excitation. It is necessary to know the natural frequency of the structure to model
the construction that will not be excited between these frequencies band, if the
structure is excited at one of these frequencies, the resonance will occur. Looking
into the technical view, the weight, stiffness, and comfort of a bike are three
crucial criteria that still drive most new developments. [11]
Study and analysis

Design is an important stage in manufacturing. It is because any product

produced must be through the design stage wherein the design stage consists of
conceptual design, concept selection; identify customer need, concept selection,
analysis and others. In design, it should be considering many factors such as
product design must be satisfied by the customer, material used the ability
product to work and others. All part in design is to fulfil customer need. Beside
that design will have an effect on the company such as profit, loss and
reputation of the company.[4]

Performing Finite Element (FEA) analysis on bicycle frames has become a

common activity for bicycle designers and engineers in the hope of improving
the performance of the frames. This is typically achieved by balancing priorities
for key idealistic requirements, including:
• Minimizing the mass of the frame (possibly using competition rules to constrain this).

• Maximizing lateral stiffness in the load transfer from the hands and feet to the drive.

• Adjusting the vertical compliance of the frame to tune the softness of the ride.

• Maximizing the strength capabilities of the frame to allow for a higher load capacity or
better load distribution.[5]

A conceptual design of a bicycle is proposed for reducing the effort kept by

cycler while he rides on an inclined plane. The project idea is the
implementation of the four-bar mechanism in a bicycle. There are several key
limitations to this model. When considering the overall riding experience, other
components will also contribute to the vertical compliance and lateral stiffness
of the bicycle (e.g. tyres, wheels, saddle, handlebars, grips).[6]

M. N. V. Krishna Vein et al. (2016) found that Reducing the effort by reducing
the combined Centre of the mass of the cycler and bicycle can be achieved by
implementing a four-bar mechanism in the bicycle. Proposing the idea of
implementation of four-bar mechanism in the bicycle to reduce the effort is our
main intention, Highly stressed areas correlate reasonably well in terms of being
similarly located with those simulations presented in the literature for similar
load cases. However, our values tend to be somewhat lower than the maximum
presented elsewhere, and precise details of load cases are in some publications
not complete as Derek Covill es al (2016) investigated on their paper.

Static Simulation of bike frame

A virtual model created in the Solidworks software is shown in Fig to show the
working and physical apparency of the bicycle. The stability, structural rigidity
and mechanical advantages are the main features of bicycle design. In this
section, we will explain how detailed analysis of loads and static loads and
stresses on the bike frame which has been carried out in detail with multiple
scenarios and boundary conditions as Chien-Cheng Lin et al. (2017)[2]
indicated that The practical application of analytical and computational
mechanics using a simple model is familiar and attractive.12,13 There are two
important aspects of structural analysis; the first is the intensity and life
evaluation of the structure; the second is structural optimization. The framework
of this study is as follows: computer-aided design (CAD), CAE, Simulation and
testing using finite element analysis (FEA), sensitivity analysis for optimization
design, and customized programming interface.

Simplify model (treated as beams)

There are several ways to treat your model in FEM software and FEM solvers.
The first model will be discussed as a beam connects with joints if we want to
redesign and reanalyze, how quickly can we reconfigure the mesh, control the
mesh and rerun again. It can get complicated with 3D meshing. In particular, this
can slow down the turnaround of concept designs, and it might well be that a
simpler approach to idealization can help here, if we want to redesign and
reanalyze, how quickly can we reconfigure the mesh, control the mesh and rerun
again. It can get complicated with 3D meshing. In particular, this can slow down
the turnaround of concept designs, and it might well be that a simpler approach
to idealization can help here.

Loads
1-Part Rider Weight

Entities: 1 edge(s), 1
plane(s)

Reference: Top Plane

Type: Apply force

Values: -70 kg.f

2- Part Rider Weight-1

Entities: 1 face(s)1
plane(s)
Type: Load
Coordinate HBar Sys 1
System:
Force Values: -10kgf
Components Force
transferred:
3- Part Rider Weight-2 4- Pedal Force

Entities: 1 face(s)1 1 face(s)

plane(s) Entities:
Type: Load (Direct Type: Load (Direct transfer)
transfer)
Coordinate HBar Sys 1 Pedal Axis Sys 1
System: Coordinate
System:
Force Values: -10kgf Force 20kgf
Values:
Reference 469.9 mm Reference 75 mm
coordinates: coordinates:
Components Force Components Force
transferred: transferred:

5- Pedal Force

Entities: 1 face(s)
Type: Load (Direct
transfer)
Force -20kgf
Values:

Material Properties
Name: Alloy Steel
Model type: Linear Elastic
Isotropic
Default failure Max von Mises
criterion: Stress
Yield strength: 6.20422e+08 N/m^2
Tensile strength: 7.23826e+08 N/m^2

Elastic modulus: 2.1e+11 N/m^2

 Poisson's ratio: 0.28
Mass density: 7700 kg/m^3
Shear modulus: 7.9e+10 N/m^2
Thermal 1.3e-05 /Kelvin
expansion
coefficient:

Mesh information - Details

Total Nodes 45959

Total Elements 26328

00:00:05

Time to complete mesh(hh;mm;ss):

Resultant Forces
Reaction forces
Selection set Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant

Entire Model lbf -5.14547e-06 114.092 -5.09187e-06 114.092

 Beam Forces
Beam Name Joints Axial(lbf) Shear1(lbf) Shear2(lbf) Moment1(lbf.in) Moment2(lbf.in) Torque(lbf.in)

1 5.00764 0.0842488 -0.721384 -0.0718458 0.29367 0.270622

Beam- 2 -0.556048 -0.182885 -0.075019 -0.152014 0.180293 -0.282133

1(Extrude4[1])

3 -18.8583 -80.4556 1.31919 1.16792 70.545 -12.1162

Beam-
1 -69.6224 -0.637199 4.14288 48.0401 26.3869 0.62779
2(Trim/Extend3[1])

1 90.7157 2.1074 -12.7321 33.4307 -21.872 5.6459

Beam-
3(Trim/Extend1)
2 -90.7157 -2.10744 12.7321 -2.61614 26.9726 -5.64588

1 -12.8175 8.51308 16.875 216.233 -126.829 46.604

Beam-
2 67.6992 -17.7996 5.04791e-13 -1.36423e-13 3.87954e-13 -9.111e-15
4(Trim/Extend2[1])

3 -67.6992 17.7995 -1.57784e-12 1.4717e-13 -27.0679 5.10537e-14

Beam-
1 58.6735 1.76708 2.08989 27.6904 -18.8398 2.82794
5(Extrude4[2])

Beam-
1 -30.199 -0.864025 0.983471 -14.7995 -11.8787 2.07011
6(Trim/Extend3[2])

Beam-
1 -41.0563 1.60776 4.86142 62.6433 -18.5786 3.93079
9(Extrude4[3])

Beam Stresses
Upper bound
Bending Bending Torsional
Beam Name Joints Axial(psi) axial and
Dir1(psi) Dir2(psi) (psi)
bending(psi)

1 -22.8527 2.56246 10.4741 0 33.6357

Beam-
2 -2.53756 -5.42176 -6.43036 0 10.9486
1(Extrude4[1])
3 -86.0613 41.6553 -2516.06 0 2602.47

Beam-
1 -188.525 621.622 -341.438 4.06169 897.745
2(Trim/Extend3[1])
 Upper bound
Bending Bending Torsional
Beam Name Joints Axial(psi) axial and
Dir1(psi) Dir2(psi) (psi)
bending(psi)

1 -413.988 -1192.34 -780.09 0 1838.85

Beam-
3(Trim/Extend1)
2 -413.988 -93.3073 -962.007 0 1380.51

1 -34.7075 2797.98 1641.12 301.52 3278.47

Beam- -5.89466e-
2 -183.317 1.76526e-12 5.01998e-12 183.317
4(Trim/Extend2[1]) 14

3 -183.317 1.90433e-12 350.248 3.30308e-13 533.565

Beam-
1 267.761 987.607 671.94 50.4308 1462.28
5(Extrude4[2])

Beam-
1 1599.4 3098.44 -2486.94 216.701 5572.46
6(Trim/Extend3[2])

Beam-
1 -187.364 2234.24 662.627 70.0979 2517.8
9(Extrude4[3])

Study Results
Stress1 VON: von Mises Stress 0.0 N/mm^2 89.9 N/mm^2
(MPa) (MPa)

Element: 23922 Element: 642

Displacement1 URES: Resultant 0.000e+00 mm 1.341e-01 mm

Displacement
Node: 38214 Node: 6464

Figure 3:beam study

factor of safety

A minimum
factor of Figure 2:beam study maximum stress
Figure 1 beam study maximum displacement
safety=4.893
 Figure 4:beam axial force diagram

maximum
axial force
value equal
403.5N

Figure 5:beam axial moment diagram at X-axis

With a maximum value of 14.33N.M

Figure 6:beam moment diagram in Z-axis

With maximum value of 4.247N.M

 The shear values are very small and dos
not have that effect in this study so it has
been neglected.

The figures below show the maximum

stresses and forces values in each beam

Figure 7:extreme stress value in each beam

Figure 8:extreme forces values for each beam

Conclusion
In conclusion the simplified study show that the maximum stress will be located
at the BTM bracket with value of 89.9MPa with factor of safety of 4.893 which
is safe for the current scenario and give us an indication about the forces and
stresses. The shear generated in the beams is very low in al axis which is also
good results and make us turn our attention to the other factors to be taken in
consideration.

Accurate model (treated as solids and surfaces)

As we said earlier, this type of study is more complicated and has a greater load
on the device because it gives each of the six elements degrees of freedom and
treats it as a three-dimensional form.as Chien-Cheng Lin et al (2017)[2]consider
that The structural bicycle frame is divided into nodes and elements. Assuming
an approximate solution for the elements, this study derives the equation of each
and the combination of elements. The problem is divided into nodes and
elements: Each frame tube can be considered as an element and each member of
the joint as a node. The frame is formed from four nodes and five stationary
elements. Structural analysis, Static & Dynamic analysis, fatigue analysis is the
various analysis need to perform in this frame analysis. All the listed analyses are
made in Solidworks platform.
Model information

Figure 9:modified model

Figure 10: frame

drawing

Volumetric
Properties for the hole model
Density = 0.01 grams per cubic millimetre.
Mass = 892.74 grams.
Volume = 114453.68 cubic millimetres.
Surface area = 139967.00 square millimetres.
Centre of Mass L:( millimetres)
X = 87.49
Y = 265.81
Z = 0.00

Model properties in details Figure 11:Btm Braket

1- Btm Braket
Mass:0.344352 kg

Volume:4.47151e-05 m^3

Density:7701.01 kg/m^3

Weight:3.37465 N

2-back axiel attachment Figure 12:back axial attachment

Mass:0.0405613*2 kg

Volume:5.2677e-06*2 m^3

Density:7700 kg/m^3

Weight:0.3975*2 N

3- seat lug

Mass:0.13242 kg

Volume:1.72011e-05 m^3
Figure 13:seat lug
Density:7698.34 kg/m^3

Weight:1.29772 N.

4- Head Upper Lug

Mass:0.114018 kg
Volume:1.48075e-05 m^3

Density:7700 kg/m^3

Weight:1.11738 N

Figure 14:head upper lug

5- Head Lower Lug

Mass:0.209397 kg

Volume:2.71944e-05 m^3

Density:7700 kg/m^3

Weight:2.05209 N

Figure 15:head lower lug

6- Head Tube Surface

Thickness:0.00075 m

Weight:0.525426 N

Volume:1.98574e-05 m^3

Mass:0.0536149 kg

Density:2700kg/m^3 Figure 16:head

tube surface
7-upper head surface

Thickness:0.00075 m

Weight:1.12747 N

Volume:4.26104e-05 m^3

Mass:0.115048 kg

Density:2700kg/m^3
Figure 17:upper head surface

8- Chain Stay Surface

Thickness:0.00075 m

Weight:0.522323 N

Volume:1.97401e-05 m^3

Mass:0.0532982 kg

Density:2700kg/m^3

Figure 18:chain stay surface

Study properties
Analysis type Static

Mesh type Mixed Mesh

Thermal Effect: On

Thermal option Include temperature loads

Zero strain temperature 298 Kelvin

Include fluid pressure effects from Off

SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation

Incompatible bonding options More accurate (slower)

Large displacement Off

Compute free body forces On

Friction Off

Use Adaptive Method: Off

Unit system: SI (MKS)

Length/Displacement m

Material Properties

Material of solid bodies

Name: Alloy Steel

Model type: Linear Elastic

Isotropic
 Default failure criterion: Max von Mises
Stress

Yield strength: 6.20422e+08 N/m^2

Tensile strength: 7.23826e+08 N/m^2

Elastic modulus: 2.1e+11 N/m^2

Poisson's ratio: 0.28

Mass density: 7700 kg/m^3

Shear modulus: 7.9e+10 N/m^2

Thermal expansion coefficient: 1.3e-05 /Kelvin

Material of surfaces
Name: Frame Material-UL

Model type: Linear Elastic Isotropic

Default failure criterion: Max von Mises Stress

Yield strength: 5.51485e+07 N/m^2

Elastic modulus: 6.9e+10 N/m^2

Poisson's ratio: 0.33

Mass density: 2700 kg/m^3

Fixtures
1-restriant

Entities: 4 face(s)

Type: Fixed Geometry

 2-Elastic connector
Figure 19:fixture
Entities: 1 face(s)

Type: Elastic Support

Normal 1e+06
stiffness value:

Shear stiffness 1000 N/m

value:

Figure 20:Elastic connector

Part1:(Dead load) Sitting case

Loads
1-Part Rider Weight

Entities: 1 edge 1 plane

Reference: Top Plane

Type: Apply force

Values: -70 kg.f

Figure 21:part rider weight

 2- Part Rider Weight-1

Entities: 1face(s)1 plane(s)

Type: Load (Direct
transfer)
Coordinate System: HBar Sys 1
Force Values: -0.001kgf
Reference coordinates: -469.9 mm
Figure 22:Part rider weight
Components transferred: Force

3- Part Rider Weight-2

Entities: 1 face(s)1
plane(s)
Type: Load (Direct
transfer)
Coordinate System: HBar Sys 1
Force Values: -0.00100kgf
Reference coordinates: 469.9 mm
Components Force
transferred: Figure 23:Part rider weight2
 4- Pedal Force

Entities: 1 face(s)
Type: Load (Direct
transfer)
Coordinate System: Pedal Axis
Sys 1
Force Values: 0.00100kgf
Reference coordinates: 75 mm

Components transferred: Force

5- Pedal Force

Entities: 1 face(s)
Type: Load (Direct
transfer)
Coordinate System: Pedal Axis
Sys 1
Force Values: 0.00100kgf
Reference coordinates: -75 mm

Components transferred: Force

Mesh information
Mesh type Mixed Mesh

Mesher Used: Standard mesh

Automatic Transition: Off

Include Mesh Auto Loops: Off

Jacobian points 4 Points

 Jacobian check for shell Off

Element Size 13.4771 mm

Tolerance 0.673853 mm

Mesh Quality Plot High

Total Nodes 27863

Total Elements 13471

Figure 24:3D mesh

Mech control has been applied at the sharp edge point where high aspect ratio and
Jacobians quality was low with element size of .6.737mm the highest aspect ratio
found to be 39 in just element which is acceptable.
Figure 253D mesh control

Resultant Forces
Selection set Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant

Entire Model N 6.4671e-06 686.485 -7.12159e-06 686.485

1-Elastic support

FX=-51.6N
FZ=169N
Frsultunt=177N

Figure 26:elastic support reaction force

2-Restriant

FX=-106N,124

FY=6.36N,11.7N

FZ=5.26N,275N

FResultunt=107N,302N

Dead loads study

Results Figure 27: fixed geometry reaction force

Stress results
With deformation scale of 411 its noticed that where is the stress concentration
regions The maximum stress found to be 34.36MPa and the minimum 1.024Pa
lower in the dead region, the results gone as expected but there is some regions
lower the seat and at the back axical assembly place It should be given some
attention.the factor of safety on these regions is not that bad at all as shown below.

Figure 28:Stress results

Displacement results
With scale of 411 the deformation is clearly shown, the maximum 0.23mm at the head top
which is very good and does not bad for a material have such ductility as alloy steel.

Figure 29:dead displacement results

Factor of safety
1-von mises factor of safety
It found that there is a minimum von mises factor
of safety of 1.854 lower the seat which is the place
mentioned before so this place can be reinforced to
have higher factor of safety

2-tresca factor of safety

It found that there is a minimum Tresca factor of
Figure 30:factor of safety (Von mises)
safety of 1.62

Figure 31:Tresca factor of safety

Part2: Active load(cruising)

All properties as model fixture, mesh, will be the same as the previous study instead of except
for the frame material and loads values which will be discussed.
Material of surfaces
Name: Frame Material Frame materially (from
the last part

Model type: Linear Elastic Isotropic Linear Elastic Isotropic

Default failure criterion: Max von Mises Stress Max von Mises Stress

Yield strength: 3.7e+08 N/m^2 5.51485e+07 N/m^2

Elastic modulus: 1.05e+11 N/m^2 6.9e+10 N/m^2

Poisson's ratio: 0.37 0.33

Mass density: 4510 kg/m^3 2700 kg/m^3

The new material has much higher yielding point than the first one and higher
elastic modulus the effect of the changing of the material will discussed and
verified at factor of safety results suction.

Resultant Forces
Components X Y Z Resultant

Reaction force(N) 110.444 1109.44 0.00764155 1114.92

1-Elastic support

FX=-110N
FZ=362N
Resultant=378N

Figure 32:elastic support

2-Restriant
 FX=-233N,270N

FY=13.3N,25N

FZ=-0.251N,603N

Resultant=233N,661N

It is noticed that the rection forces

are about the double those in
part1, it's expected to found that
due to the doubling of the part
rider weight as shown below.

Figure 33:Restraint
Part Rider Weight

Entities: 1 edge(s)1 plane(s)

Reference: Top Plane

Type: Apply force

Values: -150.001 kg.f

Moments: kgf.cm

Figure 34:part rider weight

The rest forces are the same as fig21, fg22, fig23.

Active load study Results with Aluminium alloy

Stress results
With deformation scale of 411 its noticed that where is the stress concentration
regions the maximum stress found to be 73.81.36MPa, which is more than the
double of the first study.
Figure 35:active load results

Displacement results
With scale of 411 the deformation is clearly shown, the maximum 0.4658mm at
the head top which is exactly the double of the first study and does not bad for a
material have such ductility as alloy steel.

Figure 36: active displacement results

Factor of safety
1-Von mises factor of safety
It found that there is a minimum Von mises factor of safety of 5.812 lower the seat which is
the place mentioned before so this so the problem of the low factor of safety has been solved
with the new material.

2-Tresca factor of safety

It found that there is a Tresca factor of safety of 5.079

In the lower seat position.

Static
design
Figure 37:Von mises factor of safety
Figure 38:Tresca factor of safety

evaluation with multiple

scenarios
Then by using the Frame material which is near to the aluminium alloy on its
properties and verify its validity and performance as shown before, some
scenarios could be applied to make the static
results as near as possible to the real case.

1-Sitting scenario
loads
Part Rider Weight-1 -70kg.f

Part Rider Weight-2 -20kg.f

Pedal Force-2 -20kg.f

Figure 39:sitting stress
Pedal Force-3 20kg.f
Part Rider Weight-3 -20kg.f

Figure 41:sitting factor of safety Figure 40:sitting displacement

Results:

Von mises stress: maximum=123.1MPa minimum=0.277Kpa

Displacement: maximum=1.452mm minimum=0

Factor of safety (Von mises): maximum=2.217*10^6 minimum=1.618

Factor of safety (Tresca): maximum=1.95*10^6 minimum=1.54

2-Cruising scenario
loads

Part Rider Weight-1 -150kg.f

Part Rider Weight-2 0kg.f

Pedal Force-2 0kg.f

Pedal Force-3 0kg.f

Part Rider Weight-3 0kg.

Results: Figure 42:cruising scenario

Von mises stress: maximum=74.1MP
minimum=0.0257Kpa

Displacement: maximum=0.495mm
minimum=0

Factor of safety (Von mises): maximum=3*10^7

minimum=0.865, Factor of safety (Tresca):
maximum=2.74*10^7 minimum=0.76 Figure 43:cruising displacement

Figure 44:Tresca factor of safety

3-standing scenario
loads

Part Rider Weight-1 0kg.f

Part Rider Weight-2 -20kg.f

Pedal Force-2 -50 kg.f

Pedal Force-3 50kg.f

Part Rider Weight-3 20 kg.f

Figure 45:standing stress
Figure 47standing factor of safery
Figure 46standing displacement
Results:

Von mises stress: maximum=200MPa minimum=0.64Kpa

Displacement: maximum=3.25mm minimum=0

Factor of safety (Von mises): maximum=9.659*10^5 minimum=0.65

Factor of safety (Tresca): maximum=8.4*10^5 minimum=0.6291

Fatigue analysis of bike frame (constant amplitude)

In the case of bike frame its known that the bike pedal and other component have
a cyclic motion with a variety of the loads That makes studying this topic so
important to investigate the allowable fatigue stress and know the percent of
damage after certain number of cycle, the study shows a fatigue analysis depends
on each static load scenario that mentioned before in order to know which of these
load have the highest impact on the frame on the long period.
Fatigue analysis probes how cyclic random service loads can often lead to
catastrophic structural failure of the component. In this research work the crank
bar design of a Bike is validated for Fatigue analysis using SOLIDWORKS
Simulation which enables designers to simulate Fatigue failure of the component
using Stress Life (SN) method that is based upon standard material test to failure.
Alloy steel and other material is used in the design and Fatigue SN curve table
data is taken from the SOLIDWORKS material library which is derived from
material elastic modulus based on ASME Austenitic Steel curves.[6]

Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on cursing loads

By scaling up the loads 5 times and study the deformation after 1000 cycle the
percentage of damage and life time for each element in the mesh has been
estimated with zero type load assumption.

Damage percent
It found that the maximum percentage damage after 1000cycle is 11.4% in stress
concentration region.

Loading factor
The loading factor found to be 4.129 which is good and
larger than the failure loading factor with 412%

Figure 48:damage percent

Figure 49:loading factor

Estimated life
the estimated life depends on the previous assumptions fount to be 1 million cycle as a maximum
value and 8.749*10^5 as a minimum value at the stress concentration region.
 Figure 50:estimated life

Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on standing loads

By scaling up the loads 5 times and study the deformation after 1000 cycle the percentage of damage
and life time for each element in the mesh has been estimated with zero type load assumption.

Damage percent
It found that the maximum percentage damage after 1000cycle is 149.5% in stress
concentration region.

Loading factor
The loading factor found to be 0.8761 which is
indicates that the failure could occurs in this region.

Estimated life
the estimated life depends on the previous assumptions fount to be 1 million cycle as a
maximum value and 6.688*10^2 as a minimum value at the stress concentration region.
Constant amplitude fatigue analysis based on sitting loads
By scaling up the loads 5 times and study the deformation after 1000 cycle the percentage of
damage and life time for each element in the mesh has been estimated with zero type load
assumption.

Damage percent
It found that the maximum percentage damage after 1000cycle is 34.8% in stress concentration
region.

Loading factor
The loading factor found to be 1.341 which is
not that good and near to the critical value,
failure may occur in this region.

Figure 51:damage percent

Estimated life
the estimated life depends on the previous
assumptions fount to be 1 million cycle as a
maximum value and 2.87*10^3 as a minimum
value at the stress concentration region.

It is turn out that the standing scenario have

the dominant allowable stress values due to
Figure 52:loading factor
the high damage percentage and loading
factor which indicate that failure will occur
after less than 1000 cycle. The rest of study
will concentrate on standing scenario loads
values to improve the performance and try to
achieve better results.

Figure 53:estimated life

Frequency study
Natural frequencies and mode shapes will be described for the first 5 modes of the frame
body.

Mode1: Natural frequency=35.33Hz, maximum Amp =1.226 Mode2: Nat frequency=116.41Hz, maximum Amp=0.8
Mode3: Natural frequency=138.6Hz, maximum Amp =0.91 Mode4: Nat frequency=161.2Hz, maximum Amp=1.05

Mode5: Nat frequency=187.69Hz, maximum Amp=1.4727

At first mode the deformation

concentrates on the longitudinal direction, at second mode the bending near to
center of the frame occur in the axial direction, at third mode the deformation
shown in the longitudinal direction, at fourth mode deformation take place on
the vertical axis and bending occurs in the lower bar, at fifth mode large
bending deformation on multi axils accrue and huge bending noticed in the
lower bar.

The large deformation shown clearly after the fourth mode due to the high
frequency.

The mass participation in three axes shown in figure:

 Figure 54:mass participant

The frequency response graph shown below represent the natural frequency vs
number of modes for the first 10 modes give us an indication about the evolution
of the natural frequencies with continuity of increase in modes.

Figure 55:frequency vs mode.no

The figure below shoes the type of effective mass participate in each mode. The study of the
effective mass is very important to improve the mass distribution in the frame in the next step
in performance improving .the figure clearly shows that at the first two modes the mass effect
on the Z axis ,at third mode the effective mass dominant on the y axis and have some effect
on the x axis, in rest modes until 8 the effective mass have low factor values.
 Figure 56:freq. vs. Effective mass participation

Conclusion
After applying multi scenarios and several methods the determine the allowable stress its shown that
the maximum stress and damage related to the fatigue analysis, and the point of interest in the design
is the parameters is to prevent any failure occurs due to the cyclic loads applied to the frame, the
standing scenario have the most significant influence on the stress concentration regions. The study
need to be complete to apply real time dynamic scenario ti the frame, to nake the results nearest to the
reality and more accurate
References
1-M. N. V .Krishna Veni1, M.Amareswari Reddy(2016). Conceptual Design of Bicycle
Frame.

2- Chien-Cheng Lin1,2, Song-Jeng Huang1 and Chi-Chia Liu3(2017). Structural analysis and
optimization of bicycle frame designs.

3- Devaiah B.B.a, Rajesh Purohitb, et al (2018). Stress Analysis Of A Bicycle Frame.

4- Lakshmi Srinivas.G1, BSV Ramarao2, M. Aditya Seshu3, V. Gurushanker(2015). Design

And Manufacture Of Composite Bicycle Frame And Evaluation Of Compressive Properties.

5-Derek Covill*, Alex Blayden, Daniel Coren(2015) Parametric finite element analysis of
steel bicycle frames: the influence of tube selection on frame stiffness.

6-Chetan N Madivalar1a*, Dr. Tony Shay1b, Shreedhar Kolekar(2018) FATIGUE FAILURE

ANALYSIS OF BIKE CRANK ARM USING SOLIDWORKS SIMULATION.

7- NAIR AJIT 1,IRFANUDEEN S2,JEEVA N G2,KAVIN S2,KARTHIKEYAN(2018).

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF MOUNTAIN BIKE FRAME.

8- Derek Covilla,*, Philippe Allardb, Jean-Marc Drouetb, Nicholas Emersonc(2016) An

Assessment of Bicycle Frame Behaviour under Various Load Conditions Using Numerical
Simulations.

9- https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative-design

10-M.S.M. Sani1,2*, N.A.Nazri1 , S.N.Zahari1 , N.A.Z.(2009) Abdullah Dynamic Study of Bicycle

Frame Structure.University Malaysia Pahang.

11-M.Zubair Ahmed Material(2014), Design & Analysis of a Bicycle Frame GURU NANAK
INSTITUTIONS TECHNICAL CAMPUS