You are on page 1of 22

# Assignment 2- Bicycle Crank

Part A:
Unedited crank

## Figure 2: A basic crank before simulation

Figure 2 shows an unedited crank in Autodesk simulation. The material being used is Steel AISI
4130.
The unedited crank, has a simple and basic design, it has a big hollow cylinder and a small hollow
cylinder, with a piece of metal connecting the two. It has limited sharp edges with most of the
edges rounded, to create a more visually appealing look.
I created the model in Creo Parametric 3.0. The design process used pretty basic features, such
as sketch, extrude and offset. The design process started with two circles in sketch mode; these
were then extruded. A reference tool was used to ensure the part connecting the two circles, fit
perfectly with the two circles. After the part was complete, I used the round feature to create a
more visually appealing look, this also makes it safer to use as it less sharp.

## Figure 3: The basic crank with 1000N load

Figure 3 shows the crank with a 1000N load on one hole and a fixed boundary constraint in the other end.
There are 895 mesh elements on this model

## Figure 4: A basic crank analysis showing displacement

Figure 4 shows there is a maximum displacement of 0.37mm, when stress is applied to the centre of the
small end.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 5: A basic crank analysis showing stress Von misis

Figure 5 shows the maximum stress, which is 85.55N/(mm2) given the stress applied is 1000N.

## Figure 6: Allowable stress given by Autodesk for basic crank

Figure 6 shows the allowable stress. This can be used to determine the factor of safety. The factor of
safety that is to be achieved is 3:1. From figure 6 you can see the allowable stress is 1172, this means that
the factor of safety has to be 390N/(mm2). This figure was derived using the following method:
1172
≅ 390
3

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Changing mesh density for whole part to 75%

## Figure 7: Changing mesh density from 100% to 75%

Figure 7 shows the size of mesh density changing from 895 mesh elements to 1580

## Figure 8: Displacement from 1000N force

Figure 8 shows displacement from 1000N force using 75% mesh density (1580 elements). The maximum
displacement is 0.37mm.

From fig.4 we can see that the displacement from 100% mesh density is 0.37mm. From this we can
conclude that there has not been a change in displacement as you change mesh density from 100% to
75%.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 9: Stress von Misis with 75% mesh density

Figure 9 shows the maximum value for stress von misis is 80.9701 N/(mm2). From fig.5 we can see that
the stress von misis for 100% is 85.55 N/(mm2).

The stress von misis has seen a change of 4.58 N/(mm2) which is a 5.35% change. The stress still does not
meet the 3:1 safety factor of 390 N/(mm2)

## Changing mesh density for whole part to 50%

The mesh density has been changed to 50%, this will change the mesh elements from 1580 to 2628.

## Figure 10: Displacement at 50% mesh density

Figure 10 shows the maximum displacement of the unedited crank is 0.38mm. This is almost the same as
fig.8 and fig.4. This shows that the mesh density does not affect displacement of the crank.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 11: Stress von Misis at 50%

Figure 11 shows the maximum stress von misis for mesh density of 50% is 83.07 N/(mm2). From fig.9 we
can see that the stress von misis for mesh density of 75% is 80.97 N/(mm2).
The difference of stress von misis from 75% mesh density to 50% mesh density is 2.1, which is a change of
2.59%.
The difference of stress von misis from 100% to 50% is 2.48 which is a change of 2.9%.
From this we can suggest, as mesh density changes so does stress von misis.

## Changing mesh density for whole part to 30%

The mesh density will change to 30%, this will bring the elements to 6418

## Figure 11a: Displacement analysis 30% mesh model of unedited crank

Figure 11a shows the maximum displacement as 0.38. This is the same as displacement for mesh density
at 50% and almost the same as mesh density 100% and 75% (0.37mm).

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 1211b: Stress analysis for unedited crank at mesh density 30%

Figure 11b shows the maximum stress as 84.768 N/(mm2). This means that at 30% mesh density the
crank can withstand more stress compared to the previous mesh density. As the increase in mesh density
creates more nodes on the crank, it is the most accurate figure. The simulations that will be conducted for
the rest of the report will use 30% mesh density for the whole part. Some parts may have refinements.

## Creating specific refinement points

The figures above show that a specific refinement has been created at the section where the ring and the
middle part meet (4 refinement points). This refinement will help towards a more accurate result and as
it is at a high stress point, it should increase the stress. This can be seen as the max stress has changed
from 84.77 N/(mm2) to 109.35 N/(mm2). Using refinement points also helps reduce the time to simulate

Change 1

## Figure 13: Thickness of middle part at 8mm

Figure 13 shows a CAD drawing from Creo. As
shown the thickness of the middle part is 8mm.
When the thickness was reduced, the offset had
to be removed (as offset was 2mm). The radius
for the round edges had to be decreased also.

step file.

## Figure 14 shows a meshed model of change 1. It

has been meshed at 30%
Figure 14: Autodesk mesh model for change 1

The reason for this change was due to the bending equation which states:
𝑀𝑌

𝐼
𝑀 = 𝐹𝑑
𝑏𝑑3
𝐼=
12
Therefore, decreasing the value for ‘I’, the value for bending stress will increase. To increase the value for
‘I’, the value of ‘b’ can be increase by decreasing the thickness of the middle plate.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 15: Displacement analysis for change 1

## Figure 15 shows that the maximum value of displacement is 0.56mm.

Figure 11a shows the maximum displacement for the unedited crank is 0.38mm.
This has a change of 47%. The change in displacement is quite significant when the thickness is reduced.

## Figure 16:Stress von misis for change 1

Figure 16 shows that the max stress for change 1 is 129.15 N/(mm2).
Figure 11b shows that the max stress of the unedited crank is 84.76 N/(mm2).

From this analysis we can see that by decreasing the thickness of the crank, the crank is able to withstand
more stress. However, it is not enough to be classed as safe as it does not meet the 3:1 safety factor.

Change 1a

## Change 1a is an extension for change 1. The thickness for the

middle part has been changed from 8mm to 1mm.

## Figure 16a shows the CAD drawing of this change.

Figure 16b shows the max displacement as 3.02mm. This will have
a significant impact on the crank, as the bending of the crank may
affect the rest of the bike- the crank will hit the main bike frame.
This will deem the change unacceptable as the elasticity of the
crank with change 1a would be too much.

Figure 16b shows that the max stress is 735.8N/(mm2). The safety
Figure 16a: Creo model for change 1 factor of 3:1 is 390 N/(mm2). The max stress change
1a can withhold is 1.59:1. This is not acceptable as it
does not meet the standard.

## Apart from the fact that the crank has an

unacceptable displacement and stress value, the
crank is not visually appealing. This adds to the
reasons why this change will not be implemented
and will not be used to be developed upon.

Change 2

## Figure 17: Creo design for change 2

Change 2 consists of shortening the height of the middle part. The original height was 35mm and the new
height is 25mm. By shortening the height the stress should increase as there is less material to withhold
the force

The creo part was transferred to Autodesk for simulation. There are 6308 elements when the crank was
meshed at 30%.
Figure 18 gives a max
displacement of 1.06 mm. This
makes the crank more elastic
that the unedited crank.

## Figure 19 shows that the max

stress is 235.99N/(mm2). This is
closer to the safety factor than
the previous change. However,
the max stress is not enough to
meet the criteria of 3:1.
Another change will have to be
conducted in order to meet the
product criteria.

Change 3

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 20: Creo design for change 3

Change 3 consists of decreasing the radius of the ring with the fixed constraints. This should increase the
value of the stress the crank can withhold as there is less material.

## Figure 21:Displacement analysis of change 3

Figure 21 shows that the max displacement is 1.28mm. As this is a bike crank, the force is not always
constant. When the user is not using the bike, barely any force is applied, when the user is using the bike
force is going to be applied. The displacement and elasticity of the material and the crank may lead to the
crank suffering from fatigue stress.

## Figure 22: Stress analysis for change 3

Figure 22 shows that the max stress is 238.47 N/(mm2), this is an increase of 1% from the last change. This
increase in stress does not compensate for the increase in displacement, nor does it look visually
appealing. Due to the cons outweighing the pros, this change will not be taken into consideration.

Change 4

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 23: Creo model of crank with change 4

## Figure 24: Displacement analysis for change 4

Figure 24 shows that the max displacement is 0.56mm. This is a significant decrease in comparison to
change 2, where the max displacement for change 2 is more than double the displacement for change 4.

## Figure 25: Stress analysis for change 4

Figure 25 shows the max stress is 228.192 N/(mm2). This is a decrease from change 2, which suggests that
by using this spline, the crank will not achieve its safety factor of 3:1. For this reason, this change will not
be suitable on the crank. However, the displacement figure for this change has decreased displacement
significantly which will be great if this product was targeted at extreme or professional bikers. By adding
the spline, the cost to the manufacturer will be higher than having a simple circular hole, this reinforces
my point that this change will be suitable for professional bikers, who are willing to pay that little bit
more.

Change 5

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 26: Creo design for change 5

Figure 26 shows the changes that the crank has undergone. The height has been changed from 25mm to
20mm. Along with this the round edges were changed from 3mm to 2mm. These changes were made to
decrease the surface area, therefore increasing the stress.

## Figure 28: Stress analysis for change 5

Figure 28 shows the maximum stress as 347.78 N/(mm2). This is close to meeting the safety factor of 3:1.
At the moment the crank is too safe, this is good for the consumer but it is unnecessary as it is a waste of
resources thus leading to an increase in cost.

Change 6

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 29:Creo model of crank with change 6

Figure 29 shows the changes to the crank. The height of the middle part of the crank has been further
reduced to reduce the surface area. This in theory will increase stress as σ =F/A.

## Figure 31: Stress analysis of change 6

Figure 31 shows that the maximum stress for the crank with change 6 is 372.85 N/(mm2). This figure gives
a safety factor of 3.14:1. Being 0.14 shy from the target safety factor of 3:1, this crank is safe to be used.
The material reduction has reduced the resources needed to create the crank. The crank is not too thin to
displace, nor have a significant twisting motion and is visually appealing. For the reasons stated, this crank
will not need to undergo anymore changes as it has met the criteria of the specification.

Part B:

600mm

## Figure 32: The I beam that was analysed

For an evaluation of a universal beam, an ‘I beam’ was used. Figure 32 shows the I beam that was used.
The material that was used for this beam is steel 4130, this material would not usually be used in
industry, but for the purpose of this report, I have used steel 4130. A fixed constraint was used on one
end of the beam. A force of 10KN is applied to the other end of the cantilever beam.

## Figure 33 shows that the max

displacement is 0.611mm. This value is
almost half of the value given in fig 30 for
the bike crank.

## Figure 34 gives a max stress of 58.00

N/(mm2). This value is significantly lower
than the figure from the bike crank. As the
allowable stress is 1170 N/(mm2), this
beam has a safety factor of 20:1.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 35 shows the beam with extreme
temperature applied. One end of the beam has a
room temperature of 20⁰C and the other end has
an extreme temperature of 60⁰C. The middle east
usually has extreme temperatures of 54⁰C.

## Figure 35: Extreme heat temperature applied on I beam

Figure 36 shows the displacement under these
extreme heat conditions. The max displacement
is 0.64mm. This figure is an increase from fig 33
where temperature was not a factor during the
simulation. The increase in displacement
suggests that the beam is more prone to bending
and movement when under extreme heat
temperature.

## Figure 36:Displacement analysis on heated I beam

Figure 37 shows that the max stress as 63.99
N/(mm2). This is an increase from the I beam
without the temperature. The increase in stress
considerably decrease the factor of safety (18:1)
as the structure is unable to hold the same load
at such extreme temperature.

## Figure 38 shows the temperature applied to

the beam. One end of the beam is at room
temperature of 20⁰C, the other end is -60⁰C.
These temperatures are common in places like

## Figure 40 shows us that the max

displacement at extreme cold
temperature has increased. This
displacement is more than the
extreme hot temperature as the
difference between 20⁰C and
60⁰C is 40⁰C, whereas the
difference between 20⁰C and -
Figure 39 60⁰C is 80⁰C.

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 39 shows that the max stress on the
extreme cold I beam is 69.99 N/ (mm2). This
increase in stress could be due to parts of the
beam where the temperatures are at its
extreme.

## Figure 40: Stress analysis of extreme cold temperature

Steel 4130 has a relatively high boiling point; this is a good feature as it is able to maintain most of its
posture during extreme high temperatures. However, as shown in fig 37 and fig 39 it is evident that the
beam is unable to support the same load at extreme hot and cold temperature than at normal
temperature (20⁰C).

## A force of 10KN was applied to the centre of the

beam. This simulation will show how the beam will
react to a simple supported beam.

## Figure 41 shows the max displacement for the I

beam with the force applied in the middle is
0.04mm. This is a significantly lower value
compared to the cantilever. This could be because
the the load is distributed evenly in the centre,
Figure 41: Displacement of simple supported beam therefore the beam is less prone to change from
its original position.

## Figure 42 shows the max stress is

16.27N/(mm2). The stress is also lower than the
cantilever beam, this could be due again to the
evenly distributed load over the beam.

Figure 42: Stress analysis of simple supported beam The beam was cut into half hexagons (fig32), the
two parts were then combined and welded
as can be seen in fig 43. The hexagon holes
in the I beam has an impact on both the
displacement and the stress applied to the
beam. As there are holes in the I beam the
surface area has decreased thus leading to
an increase in stress
Figure 43: I beam with holes

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Figure 44: stress on middle

Figure 44 shows the stress applied to the middle part of the I beam. The stress increases massively, this is
because the force is applied directly through a cut out of the hexagon, meaning there is less material for
the force to go through, and less material for the beam to withstand the force being applied, hence this
increases the stress the beam experiences.

## Figure 45: under extreme temperatures

Figure 45 shows when the I beam is under extreme cold conditions (-60⁰C). The stress increases
significantly when the force is applied.

1800mm beam

## The displacement has increased to 13.77mm.

Figure 47 shows that the stress has increased, this could be due to the pressure of the force applied to
the right of the beam. As the mesh applied to the extended beam is larger than the original beam,
this results in a decrease in surface area, and as the stress formula (Stress=Force/Area) implies,
the stress is indirectly proportional to the area, therefore as the area decreases the stress
increases.

Part C

## Figure 48: Bell crank

Figure 45 shows the bell crank used in a formula student race car,

“The force undergoes a force of 2.5g when carting out a turn, and this force is multiplied by the mass of
the car. The car weights 344Kg”1

Therefore, the force that is applied to the crank is calculated using the following:

## 2.5 x 9.81 x 344 = 8436.6N

This force is applied in the y direction at a negative value of -0.5 and in the z direction of 1. This is because
the force applied wouldn’t be in one specific direction, it would be applied at an angle, so these values
are chosen to select a medium.

The general constraints were added to the bell crank; this is because the bell crank is held down in the
car. The general constraints are only applied in the Rx direction. The material used is Aluminium 6063-T6.

1
Henry Spencer, Formula student coordinator at DMU

## Nizamuddin Patel © Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

Part D

Solid elements – stress, temperature, displacement and flow velocity. This type of analysis is a bit more
complicated and detailed than 2-D and is carried out on faster computers. They take longer to perform
due to the detail in analysing the solid element. The results achieved in these types of analysis are more
accurate.2

## The main types of analysis are:

Structural Analysis – These consist of linear and non-linear models. Linear models assume the model’s
material is not plastically deformed. Analysis with non-linear models stresses the materials beyond its
elastic limits.

Vibration Analysis – In this analysis a material is tested against different vibrations, shocks and impact
levels. These forces may cause resonance and failure on the material.

Thermal Analysis – This type of analysis measures the temperature, conductivity and thermal fluid
dynamics of the material. These transfers maybe in steady states through constant thermo properties or
transient transfer.3

Design analysis is a time saving process in a product life cycle. It allows a designer to examine how fit for
purpose a product is before it is manufactured. It also informs the designer of the designs inefficiency, if it
needs to be changed. Without design analysis designs of products would be manufactured before
knowing if the product is fit for purpose, efficient and safe. If the product would be made with an
ineffective design the design would have to be changed and the manufacturing process would have to be
repeated.

2
Yijun Liu, 1998, “Types of Finite Elements”, [online] Available from:
http://web.itu.edu.tr/~mecit/uum508e/Liu_pdf/Chapt_01_Lect03.pdf [Accessed: 08/03/17].

3
Peter Widas, 1997, “Introduction to Finte Element Analysis”, [online] Available from:
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/history.html [Accessed:
08/03/17]