© All Rights Reserved

12 views

© All Rights Reserved

- BASE_EN_Ga
- Bending Stress Calculations
- size factor
- Stress and Strain Intro
- Asabe Pe 2011
- Design of Gratings
- Syllabi for Chem)
- Analyt. Model. Masonry Infilled Timber Truss Works
- Prediction of Cracking in Reinforced Concretes
- Problem Solution
- Bicycles and Their Accessories
- Theory of Soil Mechanics
- Strength of Materials
- Strength of Material
- RoadtoCode_AISC
- Aircraft Structures Notes 1
- Report Rigid Slab
- ENG4053 Applied Mechanics and Dynamics 2014-5 Exam Paper
- How to Build a Bamboo Bicycle
- Som Prob Set

You are on page 1of 13

Ryan Bylard

ME 404-73

March 18, 2013

Professor Schuster

Abstract:

A detailed analysis was performed on how forces acting on a bicycle from the rider

during a maximum pedaling event effect the stresses at the Heat Tube, a critically loaded

connection within the frame. The analysis required two models to ensure accuracy of the

overall results. The first model was used as a validation that FE was correct and was

checked against hand calculations done on the entire frame. This test was to ensure the

structural safety of the bike as well as get an in depth look at how the stress act through

the length of the head tube. The maximum Von Misses stress was checked against failure

criterion on 4130 steel which has a yield stress of 460 MPa or 67,000 psi. The maximum

stress was reported to be 39,743 psi, well under the failure limit of the material.

Maximum bending stress was also checked and is reported as 16,898.4 psi.

Introduction:

My proposed project was to analyze the head tube on the bicycle I have built in single

track seen in Figure 1 below. The head tube is a critically loaded connection in the frame.

I would like to take a close look at the maximum bending stresses as a precaution against

failure. The bicycle is steered from the connection between the head tube and the tire. If

the vehicle were to fail at this connection it would

be a worst case scenario. Other tubes within the

frame, although still critical for proper function,

would not always lead to catastrophic failure if

damaged. This is the main reason why I have chosen

the head tube to do an in depth analysis on.

.

Model Development: Figure 1, Bicycle Build

The analysis of the head tube for the bicycle had to be split into two separate models. The

first, a model of the entire frame, was used to validate the accuracy of the models results.

The second model is comprised of the head tube and small portions of the top and down

tubes, or the connections to the head tube within the frame. The development and further

explanations are discussed in detail below. The second model uses the displacements

form the first model to generate stress. Table 1details the material properties.

Chrome Moly

Young’s Modulus [psi] 29.7x106

Poisson’s Ratio 0.3

Wall Thickness Head Tube [in] 0.0433

Wall Thickness TT DT [in] 0.0354

– Frame

In order to accurately predict what the head tube would be doing under loading

conditions where loads are distributed over the entire frame, it was imperative to run a

model of the entire frame. My model validation was performed using the initial frame

model as well and is discussed in detail below in results. A bicycle frame is made up of a

series of tubes. Almost every tube within the frame has its own area unique to its

component within the frame.

In order to create an accurate but simple model, 3D wires were used with section profiles

to define each tubes unique profile and thickness. The front triangle was drawn in plane

and then datum points were used to develop the 3D front and rear axle points. In order to

apply the correct stresses from model 1 to model 2, the frame had to be oriented so that

the head tube was parallel with the Y-axis. 3D Beam elements were chosen instead of bar

or truss elements in order to allow for rotation of the tubes in the frame. The model can

be seen below in Figure 2

Figure 2 above shows the boundary conditions and loading case applied to the frame.

All boundary conditions are zero displacement meaning that the arrows above show what

direction the different points in the frame have been constrained to. The front and rear

axles only show constraints on one point or side of the axle but the boundary conditions

have been applied to both sides in the model. The frame is tilted 17 degrees so that the

head tube would be in line with the Y-axis. This means that the U2 boundary condition

on the front axle will not hold it the tire to the ground. I have assumed this displacement

to be negligible. These boundary conditions were taken from a simple frame analysis

done in single track and are tabulated in Table 2 below.

Boundary Conditions

Front Axle Rear Axle Seat Tube

U1 - U1 0 U1 -

U2 0 U2 0 U2 -

U3 0 U3 0 U3 0

All loading on the frame is in the vertical direction. Each force was distributed into

vectors because the frame is tilted forward 17 degrees from the ground. From Figure 2 we

can see where the loads were applied. The axles have the normal force from the ground

acting on them. The negative force at the bottom bracket is due to the max pedaling

condition and was determined by SRAM to be about 250 lbs during a maximum pedaling

event. The positive force and moment on the top of the head tube is to simulate the rider

pulling up on the handle bars in order to produce maximum force at the cranks. Table 3

below displaces the forces applied to the frame.

Loads

Front Axle Rear Axle Bottom Bracket Handle Bars

CF1 [lb] 54 CF1 [lb] 34.5 CF1 [lb] -73.09 CF1 [lb] 11.96

CF2 [lb] 88 CF2 [lb] 112.84 CF2 [lb] -239 CF2 [lb] 38.25

CF3 [lb] - CF3 [lb] - CF3 [lb] - CF3 [lb] -

CM3 [in-lb] - CM3 [in-lb] - CM3 [in-lb] - CM3 [in-lb] 120

– Head Tube

It was important to me to capture the full head tube and connections between the head

tube and top and down tubes. Because of this I started by modeling almost the entire

frame in Solidworks which can be seen below in Figure 3.

Figure 3, Solidworks Model of Front Triangle Geometry (Left) and Simplified Head

Tube (Right)..

I decided to do the entire front triangle in order to correctly capture the dimensions of the

joints on the head tube. The tubes are constrained by geometry with each component in

the front triangle as shown above. Without the seat tube, the top tube and down tube

would be able to move vertically along the head tube. In order to analyze just the head

tube and its connections, the seat tube and chain stays were suppressed. The lug set

holding the bike together was also suppressed in an attempt to simplify the geometry for

analysis. The top and down tubes were cut done by 20 and 22 inches respectively in order

to minimize the size of the part.

From here the part was simply imported into ABAQUS as a single part made up of shells.

The 3D Solidworks part was imported as a hallow shell. The excess shells were removed

from the inside of each tube, and the thickness of the new part was set using the section

assignments. Reference points were made and then tied to the ends of each tube using

rigid body constraints. These points were created so that point loads or displacements

from the previous model could be attached appropriately to this model. The final part can

be seen below in Figure 4.

– Frame

The first model was built from 3D wires. For this reason the model mesh was comprised

of 2-node linear beam elements with no reduced integration. This model was used to

acquire the displacements and rotations at the four reference points in the head tube

model. For this reason, the mesh convergence study was done on the displacements U1,

U2, and U3 at these points which can be seen below in Figure 5.

Mesh Convergence Top Tube

Seed Size U1 % Difference U2 % Difference U3 % Difference

0.5 -0.00904916 - -0.0155271 - -5.52E-14 -

0.25 -0.00904929 0% -0.0155266 0% -1.00E-14 82%

0.125 -0.00900546 0% -0.0153705 1% 3.47E-14 447%

The mesh convergence study is displayed above in Table 4. The displacements for both

U1 and U2 converged almost immediately as can be seen by the percent differences. The

U3 displacement however shows a large percent difference that continues to climb as

element size is decreased. The displacement is on the magnitude of 10-17 and can be

assumed to be zero. This displacement seems to be reaching zero infinitely and therefore

will not converge. Convergence is not an issue here because the displacement is

essentially zero. The results for the U1 displacement of the top tube and down tube can

be seen in Figure 5 below. The entire study including convergence for the top tube and

down tube can be found in Appendix B.

U1 Displacement (in)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.013

-0.009

0.01295

U1 Displacement (in)

-0.00901

0.0129

-0.00902 0.01285

-0.00903 0.0128

-0.00904 0.01275

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

-0.00905

Seed Size (in)

-0.00906

Figure 5, Mesh Convergence U1 Displacement Top Tube (Left) Down Tube (Right).

From the convergence study, the converged mesh yielded an element size of 0.25 in and

was made up of 750 elements with a DOF of 4488. Mesh quality analysis was not

necessary here because the elements are 2-node beam elements meaning they run along

the beam in increments of the selected seed size.

– Head Tube

The head tube model was imported from Solidworks as a shell. For this reason linear

shell elements with no reduced integration were chosen to mesh this part. The part was

then checked at two different nodes for stress convergence. The two points are on the

front face of the head tube so that bending stress could be checked for convergence along

with Von Misses. The two nodes remained the same with each mesh and can be seen in

Figure 6 below.

Point 1

Point 2

Table 5 and Figure 7 below represent the results of the mesh convergence study for the

head tube. As can be seen from both the table and graphs the stress converged at both

points almost immediately. Very small elements were chosen because the part itself is

small in comparison.

Mesh Convergence - Head Tube

Seed Bending Stress % Diff % Diff Von Misses Stress % Diff % Diff

Point 1 Point 2 Point 1 Point 2 Point 1 Point 2 Point 1 Point 2

0.125 -2434.07 -9200.55 - - 2995.73 8825.17 - -

0.0625 -2411.03 -9217.59 0.9% 0.2% 2911.43 8809.81 2.8% 0.2%

0.03125 -2398.05 -9221.62 0.5% 0.0% 2877.33 8805.24 1.2% 0.1%

0 10000

-1000 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 9000

Bending Stress (psi)

-2000 8000

-3000 7000 Point 1

-4000 6000

-5000 Point 1 5000 Point 2

-6000 Point 2 4000

-7000 3000

-8000 2000

-9000 1000

-10000 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Figure 7, Mesh Convergence – Head Tube: Bending Stress (Left) Misses Stress (Right).

The mesh converges at a seed size of 0.0625 inches. However, an element size of

0.03125 inches was chosen to ensure mesh quality. The smaller seed size yielded oddly

shaped elements on the top and down tubes. Each tube was partitioned and the element

size was reduced yielding the mesh quality results in Table 6 below.

Mesh Quality- Head Tube

Seed Size [in] Number of Elements DOF Maximum Angle < 135o Minimum Angle < 45o Aspect Ratio < 4

0.03125 50515 300396 99.99% 100% 100%

FE Analysis:

The frame model was loaded based on a maximum pedaling condition which yielded the

loading shown above in Figure and Table 2. The first run of the model yielded no errors.

The head tube on the other hand was a shell element part that was imported from

Solidworks using a STEP file format. It was imported as a single part even though it was

originally an assembly. Displacements from the frame model at points corresponding to

the four reference points in the head tube model were applied and run in order to yield

stresses in the part. The first run was aborted and a warning appeared that said three parts

were free. I then used tie constraints to mate the edges of the top and down tubes to the

face of the head tube. Once this was done the analysis ran successfully with no other

errors.

Results:

– Frame

The frame model was used to check the validity of the FE analysis. The results of this

validation are in Table 7 below and are explained in discussion below.

Model Validity

Component Section Force SF1 Axial [lb] Hand Calculation [lb] % Diff

Top Tube -103.5 -75 28%

Down Tube 183.4 202 -10%

Seat Tube 122.3 98 20%

Chain Stays 49.3 49.5 0%

Seat Stays -71.3 -90 -26%

Displacements

Top Tube Down Tube Head Tube Top Head Tube Bottom

U1 -0.00904929 U1 0.0127828 U1 -0.0110638 U1 0.0137873

U2 -0.0155266 U2 -0.0184545 U2 -0.00902824 U2 -0.00925895

U3 -1.00E-14 U3 -8.91E-15 U3 -1.10E-14 U3 -9.63E-15

UR1 -1.25E-16 UR1 -2.32E-16 UR1 -1.83E-16 UR1 -2.16E-16

UR2 3.48E-16 UR2 2.44E-16 UR2 2.48E-16 UR2 1.63E-16

UR3 0.00148972 UR3 0.00227642 UR3 0.00323238 UR3 0.00519273

Table 8 above contains the displacements and rotations in the frame that correspond to

the input points in the head tube model. These displacements and rotations were used as

deformed boundary conditions in order to translate the original loading case to the

detailed head tube model. By applying these boundary conditions, stress caused from the

maximum pedal loading can be analyzed in the head tube.

– Head Tube

Once the model was determined to be valid, the head tube could be analyzed using

displacements from the validated model. The goal of the project was to determine the

maximum bending stress in the head tube and to check for failure based on a yield stress

of 460 MPa, or 67,000 psi. The deformed plot and table of results can be found below.

Point 1 - Tension

Tension

Point 2 -Compression

Point 1 - Compression

Point 2 - Tension

Stress Concentration

Bending Stress

Point 1 [psi] Point 2 [psi] Stress Concentration [psi]

Front 1297.08 -11575.5 -

Back -6340.86 11801.1 16898.4

Table 9 above corresponds to the two previous figures. The two points are labeled above

in Figures 8 and 9. These points were picked due to their maximum stresses within the

part and a detailed observation is described in discussion below.

Figure and Table 10 depict the results for a Von Misses stress analysis that was done to

predict yielding. From the results we can see that the part does not yield.

Von Misses Stress

Stress Concentration [psi] Factor of Safety

39743.1 1.69

Discussion:

The initial hand calculations preformed for this model assumed that the bike was a truss

element, effectively turning each tube into a two force member. Section forces given in

the FE results could then be checked against the axial loads from the hand calculations. A

bike is not a truss however because it is fixed at each joint, creating moments that act on

every tube in the frame. To account for this, the model was made up of 3D beam element

to allow for bending within the frame. This means that hand calculations and FE results

will differ from each other. If the difference is relatively small, then the model can be

called valid. From Table 7 we can see that none of the tubes have a difference in result

greater than 30%. From this it was determined that the model was indeed valid.

In checking the maximum bending stress in the head tube it was imperative that the head

tube be in line with an axis. This particular frame has a head tube that is rotated 17

degrees from the vertical. To account for this the frame was rotated the 17 degrees so that

the head tube would be in line with the Y-axis. The loads were then split into vector form

so that they still acted in the correct direction as can be seen in Figure and Table 2.

However the boundary conditions of zero displacement that held the front tire to the

ground could not be achieved any longer with the tilted frame. I assumed the

displacement to be negligible because I could not determine a way around it.

From the head tube model we are able to see exactly how the tube would deflect under

the original loading condition. From Figures 8 and 9 above we get a very clear picture on

what is going on. The front face of the tube seen in Figure 8 is in compression from the

bottom of the head tube to just above where the top tube would intersect. The head tube

then transitions into a state of tension. In the loading condition it was assumed that the

rider would be pulling up on the handle bars, which would create a moment twisting the

top of the head tube back towards the rider. We can also see this reaction on the back side

of the tube in Figure 9 but reversed. The tube is in tension everywhere until it gets past

the top tube where it then transitions into a compressive state.

From the deformed plots dealing with Von Misses stresses we can see that the bike will

not fail under the prescribed loading conditions. Almost the entire tube is in a state of low

stress compared to the yield stress of the material. The portions that are most interesting

are the joints, specifically at the bottom of the connection between the down tube and the

head tube. Here we can see a very large stress concentration, and although it is still within

the yielding limit of the material for this loading condition, it could defiantly be the initial

point of yielding during a crash or a drop from high off the ground which would apply

much higher forces to the frame. Geometry can be tweaked here and there to determine if

there is better placement for the connection. Less concentrated stresses may be achieved

by moving the location of the down tube, top tube, or even by changing the length of the

head tube.

The results that came from the FE model are exactly what I set out to find. I wanted to

know exactly how the head tube would deform, the maximum bending stresses it would

see, and if it would fail during a maximum pedaling event. The deformed plots of S22

stress, bending in the head tube, give an excellent representation of how the head tube

deforms.

Next I would analyze the lug set used to build the bike. They were disregarded in an

attempt to simplify geometry. However I believe that it would be possible to take

displacements from the head tube model and translate the to a lug model to determine the

stresses seen in the lugs. The two models may even be able to be run as one analysis to

see the variance in how stress concentrations form between a lugged and non-lugged

bike.

The results prove that the bike is safe to ride. This particular model is only applicable to

the specific geometry and material that I built my bike from. However, the model may be

used for any bike that built and can even be used to determine the safety of new possible

geometries.

Conclusion:

The head tube of the bike I build in single track was analyzed while under loading from a

maximum pedaling event. To summarize, I have determined that the vehicle I built will

not fail under a maximum pedaling condition. This means that I can crank on the pedals

as hard as I need to, and be confident that the bike will hold together. Furthermore this

model gives insight into how the head tube would deform in extreme cases. This

information can be used to develop geometries that resist the formation of high stresses in

an attempt to give an overall safer frame.

Appendix A: Hand Calculation with Hard Copy.

Appendix B: Frame Mesh Convergence Tables.

Seed Size U1 U2 U3

0.5 -0.00904916 - -0.0155271 - -5.52E-14 -

0.25 -0.00904929 0% -0.0155266 0% -1.00E-14 82%

0.125 -0.00900546 0% -0.0153705 1% 3.47E-14 447%

Seed Size U1 U2 U3

0.5 0.013003 - -0.01887 - -4.38E-14 -

0.25 0.012782 2% -0.01845 2% -8.91E-15 80%

0.125 0.012782 0% -0.0185 0% 2.59E-14 390%

- BASE_EN_GaUploaded bynitin400
- Bending Stress CalculationsUploaded byschaali
- size factorUploaded byNeal Castillo
- Stress and Strain IntroUploaded bykurdufani21
- Asabe Pe 2011Uploaded byMohd Zulhafizi
- Design of GratingsUploaded byGanesh Peketi
- Syllabi for Chem)Uploaded bymib_ajay
- Analyt. Model. Masonry Infilled Timber Truss WorksUploaded byengrattique
- Prediction of Cracking in Reinforced ConcretesUploaded byAlvaro Ramirez
- Problem SolutionUploaded byHoo
- Bicycles and Their AccessoriesUploaded bynorivalneto
- Theory of Soil MechanicsUploaded byMuhammad Shahrul
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded bydhana555
- Strength of MaterialUploaded byDEEPAK
- RoadtoCode_AISCUploaded byAnonymous dlSmlsymH
- Aircraft Structures Notes 1Uploaded byWizardWannabe
- Report Rigid SlabUploaded byakshaymnnit
- ENG4053 Applied Mechanics and Dynamics 2014-5 Exam PaperUploaded bypilas_nikola
- How to Build a Bamboo BicycleUploaded byitek
- Som Prob SetUploaded byAnonymous mXicTi8hB
- Unsymbendingv2014learn 141201053553 Conversion Gate01Uploaded byPrivat Zouoba
- TRANSFORMING PCOMP TO PSHELL.pdfUploaded byManoj Kumar
- Design and Analysis of Continuous Propped Cantilever BeamUploaded bybalacads
- phytorid STPUploaded bysamirbendre1
- Design Support 2Uploaded byJohn Rom Cabadongga
- CE _GATE-2018_Paper_11-FEB-2018 Morning Session (5)Uploaded bySourabhThakur
- CAMA_LAB1Uploaded bypachiedu
- Ladder Calculation 9April2018Uploaded byDiosdado Mingi Jr.
- NailUploaded byKh Bappi Shahriar
- Joist Girder DesignUploaded bysravan

- Winkler Curved Beam TheoryUploaded byMuluken Temesgen
- 1a.Saipem1_STOCKSUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Natural Frequency of a Submerged RingUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Meshing Tutorial Ans.sysUploaded byCortesar Manu
- RyanBylardRyanBylardFinalReportHeadTube696.pdfUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Pipe Simulation Using ANSYS – A Quick Introduction.pdfUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Book2Uploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Ommundsen, Marius LoenUploaded byYiorgos Pericleous
- Finite Element Analysis of Marine Buried Pipeline Upheaval Buckling in Clayey Backfill With Cover MaterialUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- The Key to Sucessful Bending PracticesUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- ASME CODE QUALIFICATION OF PIPE BENDS WITH LOCALIZED WALL THINNING.pdfUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Wall Thinning Acceptance Criteria for Degraded Carbon Steel Piping Systems Using FAD Methodology.pdfUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- 6.10-6.13Uploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- FEAUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- IntegrationUploaded bygocherke
- Winkler Curved Beam TheoryUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- FEAC FinalUploaded bymgilbel
- CST (1).pptUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- CE595 Section 5-1Uploaded byCialla Knowles
- 用微分求积法求解梁的弹塑性问题Uploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- ABAQUS ElementsUploaded bytlili_adnene
- Chap5Uploaded byAnonymous dWtqWj4qj
- 6in Pipe High Curvature (Autosaved)Uploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- nrcs144p2_033533.xlsUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- Excel Data (Write).txtUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- FEMPrimer-Part1Uploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- ES128 IntroUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- TopicsUploaded byZhiqiang Gu
- About Asme ViiiUploaded byZhiqiang Gu

- Cykno Retro-style Electric BikeUploaded byBil Andersen
- cube-xmsUploaded byAntónio
- TREK 2011 MTBUploaded bymountainbikerus
- Thule 2012 CatalogUploaded byrackwarehouse
- DXS Engineering Sdn BhdUploaded bySabri Jamil
- Bici-tricicloUploaded byCasilisto
- The Custom BicycleUploaded byMark Johansson
- Presspack ZestyUploaded byDownhillnews
- 2012-Haro-RaceUploaded bybetovioly
- MY16 Madone Assembly ManualUploaded byEdis Hercegovac
- Giant 2011Uploaded bymountainbikerus
- Redesign-Rollator’s Parking Brake SystemUploaded byjerrison samuel
- MET2014 Buffington RyanUploaded byRadu
- Radon Zr Race 29er 6Uploaded bymacfia
- KROSS_CATALOG_2016_en.pdfUploaded bymiro
- 06 Jamis CatalogUploaded bytspinner
- Radius Cycles 2009 CatalogueUploaded byLogans Cycles
- 2008 Sizing Chart of Marin bicycle frameUploaded byxjcai
- GAZELLE Export Cataloque 2011Uploaded bymotanul2
- 2014 Demo 8 SpecificationsUploaded bySickLines
- Manual Durban English WebUploaded byignorante
- OccamUploaded byLisandra Invernizzi
- dfma - CopyrightUploaded byYeoh Kh
- Optimization of an off-road bicycle with four-bar linkage rear suspensionUploaded bykristeen78
- Supra Saeindia 2017 Rule BookUploaded byMeet Shah
- 09 Jamis CatalogUploaded bywampiter
- 2011 Mavic Riders Equipment en 0Uploaded bybaronvonballad
- 66cc 80cc Grubee SkyHawk GT5 Bike Engine Kit Installation ManualUploaded bypauliedata
- 2001 2002 Srx Supplemental ManualUploaded byplacecanada
- 2Best Road Bikes _ Compare by Specifications and ComponentsUploaded byNahidul Alam Chowdhury