FEA ProjEct
FEA ProjEct
FEA ProjEct
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: .............................................................................................................. 2
2. ANALYSIS: ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Assumptions: .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Analysis of an Aluminum frame (Conventional Frame): .......................................................... 3
2.3 Analysis of a Steel frame (Conventional Frame): ..................................................................... 6
2.4 Analysis of a Aluminum frame (Alternate Frame): .................................................................. 9
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ............................................................................................ 13
3.1 Comparison of the Steel frame with the Aluminum frame under similar loading conditions: 13
4. Conclusions: .................................................................................................................. 14
1.
INTRODUCTION:
A Bi-cycle frame is prominent part in a bicycle which is subjected to static and dynamic loads.
The dependency of the performance is directly proportionate to the weight of the cycle and frame
FEA Model Used: We have considered beam elements to analyze the system. We have
ignored the welding effects to simplify our analysis. Considering the welding will strengthen the
system. Hence, the model considered by us will give us conservative values.
2.
ANALYSIS:
Correct loading information is absolutely vital in producing reliable results. We use three load
cases to compare the overall safety and performance characteristics of various bike frames. For
every load case we refined the mesh by increasing the number of elements until we got
convergence in the maximum stress values. .
Assumptions:
We have assumed the bicycle components to be equivalent to beam element.
We have ignored the effects of welding.
We have assumed that all the loading is transferred to the points where wheels are
attached to the bicycle frame.
We have considered static equivalent of impact loads .
All loads acting on the bicycle frame are considered as point loads.
Maximum/stress/ (MPa)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No./of/divisions/per/line
Figure 2:
(a) Deflection distribution in Al
frame under static loading
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection
upon refining the mesh size
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No./of/divisions/per/line
Maximum0stress0 (MPa)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No.0of0divisions0per0line0
Figure 4:
(a) Deflection distribution in Al frame under
horizontal impact
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection upon
refining the mesh size
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No0of0divisions0per0line
Maximum.stress.(MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No..of.divisions.per.line
Figure 6:
(a) Deflection distribution in Al frame
under vertical impact
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection upon
refining the mesh size
Maximum0nodal0 deflection0 (mm)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
No.0of0divisions0per0line
50
60
Maximum/stress/ (MPa)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No./of/divisions/per/line
Figure 8:
(a) Deflection distribution in Steel frame
under static loading
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection upon
refining the mesh size
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
20
30
40
No./of/divisions/per/line
50
60
Figure 9:
(a)Stress distribution in Steel frame
under horizontal impact
(b)Convergence of stress upon refining
the mesh size
200
Maximum0stress0 (MPa)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No.0of0divisions0per0line
Figure 10:
(a) Deflection distribution in Steel
frame under horizontal impact
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection
upon refining the mesh size
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
No.0of0divisions0per0line
50
60
70
Figure 11:
(a)Stress distribution in Steel frame
under vertical impact
(b)Convergence of stress upon refining
the mesh size
Maximum.stress. (MPa)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No..of.divisions
Figure 12:
(a) Deflection distribution in Steel
frame under vertical impact
(b)Convergence of nodal deflection
upon refining the mesh size
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
No.0of0divisions0per0line
50
60
Fig 13:Picture of the alternate bicycle frame considered for the analysis.
Fig 13 shows a different kind of bicycle frame available in the market. This kind of frame has a
monocogue design which facilitates manufacturing using modern manufacturing techniques such
as 3D- Printing. In this project we have tried to analyze this frame under same loading conditions
considered for the conventional bicycle frame and compared the performance of the two frames.
Figure 14:
(a) Stress distribution in Frame-2
under static loading
(b)Convergence of stress upon
refining the mesh size
65
Maximum0stress0 (MPa)
(a)Static Start-up:
64
63
62
61
60
59
0
10
20
30
40
No.0of0divisions0per0line
50
60
70
5.262
5.26
5.258
5.256
5.254
5.252
5.25
5.248
5.246
5.244
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No.1of1divisions1per1line
Maximum1stress1 (MPa)
198
196
194
192
190
188
186
184
0
10
20
30
40
50
No.1of1divisions1per1line
60
70
80
23.05
23.04
23.03
23.02
23.01
23
22.99
22.98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No.2of2divisions2per2line
Maximum0stress0 (MPa)
130
128
126
124
122
120
118
0
10
20
30
40
50
No.0of0divisions0per0line
60
70
80
10.535
10.53
10.525
10.52
10.515
10.51
10.505
10.5
10.495
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No.2of2divisions2per2line
3.
Comparison of the Steel frame with the Aluminum frame under similar
loading conditions:
245
Static loading
Horizontal impact
Vertical impact
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
stress
stress
deflection
deflection stress deflection
(Mpa)
(MPa)
11.6754 0.247757 189.015 21.062 23.3508 1.68656
300
12.7659
0.32289
183.372
6.97498
245
64.64
5.26
199.1
23.04
E
Yield
(Young's
Material
Strength
Modulus)
(MPa)
(MPa)
Al (6601) 70E+03
Mild
210E+03
Steel
Alternate
70E+03
Frame
24.4645 0.603998
129.81
10.52
Table 1: Table showing comparison of maximum stress and displacement for different load cases and
frames.
As seen from Table 1, the stress values for the Al and SS frames are comparable. The deflection
for SS frame is less for all the load cases, because of its high elastic modulus. While designing a
bicycle frame the deflections are not too significant. Knowing that the density of Al is 1/3 that of
SS, we can significantly reduce the weight of the bicycle, by choosing Al frame, without
compromising the structural strength of the bicycle.
The results for the alternate frame show significantly higher stresses (esp. in vertical impact
loading case). It is clear form the results that the bicycle frame does not perform well under
4.
Conclusions:
In this project we have tried to analyze two different bicycle frames, as well as the conventional
bicycle frame for two different materials. The bicycle frames were found to be within the safety
limits with a decent factor of safety. However, we should note that one of the weakest points of
any bicycle are its wheel spokes. For future study we can analyze different kind of spokes, esp.
the ones used by bicycle racers, to understand the load bearing capacity of different types of
bicycles.
APPENDIX A
(Proposal)
Introduction
A Bi-cycle frame is prominent part in whole racing cycle system, which is subjected to static and
dynamic loads. The dependency of the performance is directly proportionate to weight of the
cycle and frame structural design; Optimization of weight and structure of the frame is the best
scope of optimizing the overall performance of the racing cycle
The aim of this project is to analyze various commercially available bicycle frames under
loading conditions normally encountered during their operation. We intend to analyze the
common factors considered while designing a bicycle; e.g.: the weight of the bicycle, its
maximum load carrying capacity and its impact toughness.
Next, we intend to increase the number of nodes in our model to the point we reach convergence.
Then, we will be able to define the minimum number of nodes required to get results with
sufficient level of accuracy.
Lastly, we intend to compare the results achieved by increasing the number of nodes against
those achieved by increasing the number of elements.
Engineering Assumptions
-
Anticipated Results
-
The commercially available bicycles are expected to have a reasonable factor of safety.
We will be able to identify the critical areas in the bicycle frame.
Timetable
We intend to submit the results in the first week of December.