Design of Aluminum Bicycle

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020

R. Davis
Graduate Student.
Frames
M. L. Hull This paper presents the use of a hybrid stress analysis method for the prediction of
fatigue life of bicycle frames. A finite beam element computer program is used to
Assistant Professor.
calculate frame stresses. In order to correlate the results with actual frame stresses,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, brittle coating experiments are conducted on an aluminum frame. Strain gage
University of California, experiments, guided by the brittle coating results, provide more accurate
Davis, Calif. 95616 measurements of maximum principal stresses. Stress concentration factors are
defined, the fatigue life of an aluminum frame is predicted for a simple loading
condition, and the result is compared with in-service failure data.

Introduction
Recent concerns about the expenditure of energy for human
transportation have accentuated the need for more efficient
passenger vehicles. The result has been an unprecedented
increase in the use of lightweight structural materials in the
manufacture of automobiles in the United States. Another
result has been the increased popularity of bicycles. for
practical transport. ...
With the large interest in bicycle transportation, research
has been conducted at the University of California, Davis in
recent years to develop a lightweight aluminum bicycle.
Aluminum was chosen because preliminary calculations using
a simple finite beam element program showed that a 20
percent reduction of weight could be achieved, while in-
creasing the frame efficiency by about 3 percent above that of
a comparable steel frame [1]. Efficiency indicates the ability
of a frame to absorb as small an amount of energy as possible
from the total usable effort during pedaling. Hence, a highly
efficient frame delivers almost all usable rider effort to the
drive train with very little energy going into the distortion of
the frame. Other advantages of aluminum include ease of
fabrication by welding and low cost in comparison with new
structural materials like carbon or· boron reinforced com-
posites.
Several aluminum frames were built by Mouritsen [2], and
were put into normal service. Frame structural members were
joined by Tungsten-Inert Gas welding and the frames were
ridden in the as-welded condition. One frame failed by
fatigue, however, after about 1,600 km of riding (see Fig. 1).
Most steel frames can be ridden for 64,000 km [3]. A more
complete analysis of stresses in welded aluminum frames is
needed in order to develop a frame that will be light, yet able
to resist premature fatigue failure.
The majority of previous work on stress analysis of welded
tubular joints has been contributed by those interested in
design of offshore structures. Bouwkamp [4] discussed some
of the basic ideas for adequate joint design. Sharp and
Nordmark [5] investigated the fatigue strength of a tubular
Contributed by the Design Engineering Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received at ASME Headquar-
ters, September 22,1980.
Fig. 1 Fatigue lallure In weld alter 1600 km of service
aluminum truss, and in their specific case devised a prediction
method based on simple specimen fatigue data already
available. White and Patel [6] and Pan and Plummer [7]
used brittle coating and fracture mechanics approaches,
respectively, to determine stress concentration factors for
specific joint configurations and loading conditions. Due to
their specific nature, the results are not useful for the bicycle
analysis, but the analysis methods used could be applied to a
bicycle frame.
A more general method, advanced finite element analysis,
has been a major field of interest in tubular frame design. The
evolution of the method can be seen in a sequence of papers
by Greimann, DeHart, Blackstone, Stewart, and Scales [8],
Kuang, Potvin, and Leick [9], and Liaw, Litton, and Reimer
[10]. The results given, however, are too specific to be ap-
plied to the bicycle problem. The method used is very
powerful and could be applied to the bicycle frame, but the
limited availability of a large computer system to handle the
enormous computation and storage requirements precludes
the use of this method.
This paper reports a new hybrid stress analysis technique
for obtaining accurate measurements of principal stresses in
stress concentration areas. The hybrid technique combines a
simple version of the finite element approach with common
experimental stress analysis methods. The new technique is
used to measure the maximum principal stresses in an

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 1981, Vol. 1031901

Copyright © 1981 by ASME
 = Table 1 Node positions of the bicycle model
O Element Number
Node Coordinate
X Y Z
(cm) (cm) (cm)
1 0 0 3.2
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 -10.2
4 53.7 0 16.4
5 0 0 -6.0
6 53.7 0 -38.8
7 64.4 -2.2 6.7
8 64.4 2.2 6.7
9 53.7 -1.6 -38.8

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020

10 53.7 1.6 -38.8
11 58.9 -2.2 -36.0
12 58.9 2.2 -36.0
Fig. 2 Finite beam element representation of the frame 13 91.9 -6.1 -18.0
14 91.9 6.7 -18.0
aluminum bicycle frame and the fatigue life of the frame is
predicted for a simple loading condition.
Table 2 Properties of beam elements'0'
Finite Element Analysis
Element Ix, polar Iy a n d / z , A,
For complex space frames (i.e., frames made up of an # moment of moments of area
assemblage of beams) the simplest analysis method is finite inertia inertia
beam element analysis. Each beam in the frame is a "beam (10~ 7 m 4 ) (10-7m4) (cm 2 )
element," and the elements are connected at "nodes" to make 1,2,3 1.220 0.612 5.70
up the complete structure. Connections between elements may 4,5,6 0.629 0.316 1.89
sustain all six force and moment components. These internal 7,8,11,12,16 0.004 0.020 0.74
loads are assumed to act at the nodes, which are defined by 9,10,13,14,15 0.082 0.004 1.12
17,18 2.835 1.432 7.60
the intersection of center lines of the elements. It must be
noted that this method precludes obtaining a detailed picture For all elements, £•=6.89x1;, MPa
of joint stresses because the nodes are mathematical points y = 0.334
(fl)
within a global coordinate system. SeeFig.2.
An interactive computer program developed at the
University of California, Davis by Sikes and Beadle called direction (nodes 13 and 14) and translation of the head tube in
STAN [11] was used to analyze the bicycle frame. The the x direction (nodes 1 and 3). X, Y, Z directions are shown
program uses the finite beam element approach, and performs in Fig. 2. This unusual choice of coordinates was necessary to
all the necessary matrix manipulation. Coordinates of the allow free rotation at the head tube in the STAN program.
nodes, cross-sectional properties of the beams, the external Translation is not permitted in the Y direction because a
loads, and the boundary conditions must be input by the user. bicycle can be ridden almost upright at all times. Allowing
The idealized model of the 21 in. aluminum bicycle frame that motion in the Y or Z directions would involve dynamic
was analyzed is given in Fig. 2. Inputs necessary for the considerations and wheel and fork stiffnesses. These com-
computer simulation are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The actual plexities were not included in the present analysis. Note that
test frame may be seen in Fig. 5, and tube dimensions are the rear axle is constrained in the X, Y, and Z directions which
given in Table 3. Note that welded joints are ground smooth. is necessary to maintain equilibrium. This is analogous to
The boundary conditions of an operating bicycle frame are defining the rear axle as the origin of a coordinate system
somewhat complex. To determine the sensitivity of stresses to associated with a moving bicycle, with all distortion of the
changes in conditions at the boundaries, the bicycle frame was frame measured relative to that reference frame. Equilibrium
analyzed under three different conditions. Boundary con- is justified because the mass of the aluminum bicycle is very
ditions (A) that most closely approximate actual bicycle frame small (—1.5 kg) and inertial effects can be ignored.
conditions allow rotation at the head tube in the global Z Another set of boundary conditions allowed the rotations
direction (nodes 1 and 3), rotation at the rear axle in the Y aforementioned, but constrained nodes 1 and 3 in the X

, Nomenclature

neutral axis of a cross- associated with pedal

X, Y, Z = global coordinates in section crank assembly of
finite element model A = area of cross-section bicycle
x,y,z = local coordinates of an E,ES = modulus of elasticity of (a\s)i = a\ in the sample at the
element in finite element specimen point i
model j<=Poisson's ratio Sf = fatigue strength of
Fx,Fy,F7 = forces in the P=pedal load sample material
corresponding local A,B,C= designations for several Su = ultimate tensile strength
coordinate directions sets of boundary con- of sample material
Ix = polar moment of inertia ditions °a>ffm = alternating and mean
of a cross-section a( = larger principal stress stress, respectively
Mx,My,Mz = moments about the (plane stress) ef = threshold strain of brittle
corresponding local <r2 = smaller principal stress coating
coordinate directions (plane stress) Ks = stress concentration
Iy,I7= moment of inertia about rp ,rf,Zp ,Zf = linear dimensions factor

902/Vol. 103, OCTOBER 1981 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 3 Dimensions of 6061-T6 aluminum bicycle frame'"'
F - 'P P
Chain ~ 7~
Tube Length O.D. Wall Thickness
type (cm) (cm) (cm)
r = 17.1 cm Head tube 13.3 3.5 0.64
u = 11.1 cm Top tube 56.2 3.8 0.17
Down tube 62.9 3.8 0.17
z„ = H.O cm Seat tube 55.2 3.8 0.17
V
Bottom bracket 7.1 4.4 0.64
Zj = 4.8 cm Seat stay 51.9 1.6 0.17
Seat stay brace 4.5 1.6 0.17
Chain stay brace 4.5 1.9 0.21
Chain head stay 43.8 1.9 0.21
17 deg angle and seat tube angle.

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020

(a)
SeeFig. 5.
Measured to centers of joints defined by intersection of center lines, or
to the free ends of the tubes.
On the Frame

[2], one had been ridden normally to failure. Cracking

'f
M, = Pz.
V-ZP17P
Fig. 3 Load inputs to the frame due to pedalling rider. Simulations use
a value of P = 445 N.
direction. These boundary conditions were designated (B).
Boundary conditions (C) only allowed head tube rotation
about the Z axis. The rear axle was completely fixed.
The loading condition investigated was an idealization of a
rider applying only vertical forces on the pedal with the pedal
crank in the horizontal position. Handlebar forces were not
considered because those forces would be transmitted directly
to the front fork, which was assumed a fixed boundary
relative to the frame. Also, the rider was assumed to be riding
off the seat. The determination of forces and moments on the
frame due to the vertical pedal load is straightforward. The
results are shown in Fig. 3.
Data presented by Soden and Adeyefa [12] and Gregor
[13] concerning pedalling force patterns show that peak
normal pedal force occurs at different angular positions of the
pedal crank depending on the rider and the power output
being sustained. Also, the pedal is not always horizontal.
However, inspection of the data shows that on the average,
peak normal forces occur near the horizontal crank position,
and pedal tilt is close to zero (10 deg or less) for this con-
figuration in all cases studied. Therefore the pedal load
idealization used here is a good estimation of the actual
maximal pedal load during normal cycling.
The bicycle frame was analyzed for both left and right (i.e.,
reversed) pedal loads. Moments and forces computed ac-
cording to Fig. 3 were applied at node 6 of the model in Fig. 2.
Both sets (i.e., left and right) represent configurations that
maximize the loads transmitted to the frame for a given value
of P because the moment arm rp of P is maximized.
Note that the loads are assumed to act at the center of the
bottom bracket. Separate analyses were also undertaken with
the loads being radial forces acting at the positions of the
pedal crank bearings, but the difference in important element
stresses found was negligible (less than 1 percent). Chain force
on the rear wheel was not experienced by the frame because
the rear axle was assumed a fixed boundary. A pedal load of
445 N was used in the simulations. The system is linear,
however, and results may be extrapolated to study any load
magnitude.
Of several aluminum frames built previously by Mouritsen
occurred at the welded joint connecting the seat tube to the
bottom bracket (node 6 in the finite element model, see Fig.
1). Note that the weld beads were present on this frame. Using
(A) boundary conditions, and a 445 N pedal load, the
following loads on member 6 at node 6 were obtained:
F^ = 332N Mx =0.090 Nm
iV=-77N My =0.768 Nm
F, = - 3 N M = -38.2Nm
where x, y, and z are local right-handed coordinates, x axial to
the member pointing away from node 6, y and z transverse to
the member. Calculations over all members in the frame
showed that the maximum stress in the entire frame occurs at
this location. The finite beam element method predicted a
point of failure which matches the actual failure, assuming a
simple pedalling load.
Analysis of a right pedal load also showed node 6 to be the
point of maximum stress, but the down tube (member 5) was
the most highly stressed. Finite element results indicate that
the bottom bracket is the most failure-prone area for simple
pedal loads.
In addition to the stresses at the "fictitious" ends of the
elements (defined by the intersection of tube center lines),
stresses at the actual position of the welded interface between
members were computed. Note that such computations do not
account for stress concentration. Table 4 contains a summary
of the stresses at the bottom bracket area for the various
boundary conditions and pedal loads at fictitious ends and at
welded interface positions.
Circumferential locations of maximum stresses were also
determined. In all calculations, direct shear stress at points of
maximum bending stress were always negligible, so maximum
stress points always lie on a line perpendicular to the resultant
bending moment vector. Figure 4 shows the points of
maximum tensile stress predicted by the STAN simulations.
Angular displacements (see Section View A-A, Fig. 4) are
listed in Table 5.
Inspection of the principal stresses shows that (B) and (C)
boundary conditions give almost identical results, and the
stresses deviate from those of boundary conditions (A) by up
to about 10 percent. The conclusion is that moderate
boundary condition changes do not have a large effect on
frame stress. An approximate boundary condition set (A) is
adequate for frame analysis and the problem need not be
complicated by considering the wheels and forks.
An interesting aspect of the results is the behavior of the
chain stay members (elements 9 and 13). When a left pedal
load is applied, the left chain stay (element 9) is in tension,
while the right (element 13) is in compression. When a right
pedal load is applied, both are in compression. Such behavior
is not intuitively expected from the configuration of the pedal
crank mechanism. The moment Mx generated by the pedal

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 1981, Vol. 103/903

 Table 5 Angular displacements of maximum stress points(a)
Position () for B.C. (A) () for B.C. (B) & (C)
(degrees) (degrees)
1 1.1 2.1
2 3.8 0.5
3 31.0 31.0
4 1.6 0.8
5 1.6 0.7
(a) See Fig. 4

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020

LEFT PEDAL LOAD RIGHT PEDAL LOAD
Fig. 4 Locations of maximum principal stresses in the bottom bracket
area ("hot spots")

Table 4 Principal stresses (per 445 N pedal load) at the

bottom bracket area, based on finite beam element method
Boundary Loading Member Node Position 3 al a2
condition type 2 (MPa) (MPa)
type!
5 6 11.8 -0.359
A L 6 6 E 24.8 o
9 9 14.5 -0.114
13 10 0.090 -19.2
5 6 11.5 -0.370
A L 6 6 23.7 o
9 9 10.9 -0.152
13 10 0.110 -15.8
5 6 26.1 -0.003
A R 6 6 E 18.4 -0.260
9 9 0.256 -12.2
13 10 0.250 -12.1
5 6 25.2 -0.004
A R 6 6 17.7 -0.270
9 9 0.343 -9.07
13 10 0.340 -8.87
Fig.5 Bicycle frame test fixture and associated equipment
5 6 12.6 -0.339
B L 6 6 22.6 o
9 9 11.7 -0.141
13 10 0.115 -15.0
5 6 26.3 -0.004
B R 6 6 16.7 -0.288
9 9 0.378 -8.25
13 10 0.381 -7.90
5 6 12.5 -0.340
C L 6 6 22.6 o
9 9 11.9 -0.139
13 10 0.115 -15.0
5 6 26.2 -0.004
C R 6 6 16.6 -0.289
9 9 0.375 -8.30
13 10 0.373 -8.08
1 See text for explanation of boundary condition types.
2L: Leftpedalload, R: Right pedal load.
3E: At fictitious ends of elements, I: At tube-to-tube weld interface. Fig. 6 Bottom bracket area, showing stress pattern developed by
Stresscoat. The dark numbered lines are Isoentatlcs.

load and the angular positions of the members combine to

give this somewhat counter-intuitive result.
Experimental Stress Analysis
To both assess the accuracy with which the finite beam
element method predicted the maximum principal stress
points and examine the effects of stress concentration, the
stress state in the bottom bracket area of the aluminum test
frame was determined experimentally. Brittle coating
(Stresscoat) experiments were conducted first. The advantages
of brittle coating over other methods such as photoelastic
models is that a picture of the stress field is obtained with a
minimum of special equipment and analysis of results is
mathematically straightforward. Durelli, Phillips, and Tsao
[14] offer an extensive treatment of the theory behind brittle
coating analysis. More advanced methods of stress calculation
are outlined that are based on the presence of a significant
minor principal stress. For the bicycle frame, however, a2 is
expected to be very small compared to a" because most stress
is either axial or bending. Therefore, a simple yet approximate
formula may be used to calculate the stress at a crack in the
coating.
(I)
is the principal stress in the specimen perpendicular to the
al s
crack at the cracking load, E s is the modulus of elasticity of

904/VoI.103, OCTOBER 1981 Transactions of the ASME

Table 6 Comparison of principal stresses in three stress
concentration areas (o)
Source
( f f ls)l (C|s)2 ( C T ls3>
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Finite Element 22.6 12.5 11.9
Analysis
Stresscoat 51.2 48.9 31.6
Test
Strain Gage 39.7 38.1 30.4
Measurements
<a)
SeeFig.4
the specimen material, and eds is the tensile strain in the
calibration bar necessary to crack the coating. Brittle coating
always cracks perpendicular to the tensile principal stress.
Errors in using equation (1) will be very small as long as a2 is
negligible (see [14], Section 15.7).
One drawback involved in brittle coating is its sensitivity to
various parameters. For example, the threshold strain e^ may
be affected by temperature, coating thickness, time between
application of coating and testing, speed of load application,
humidity, and other factors. Therefore, even under the most
controlled conditions, accuracy of principal strain
calculations is questionable.
Nevertheless, because of the ability of brittle coating to
show overall stress trends by drawing isoentatics, the bottom
bracket area was coated and studied. Loads were applied by
hanging weights from a mock pedal crank as shown in Fig. 5.
Relaxation of load was accomplished with a hydraulic floor
jack. Left pedal loads only were applied. The clamping of the
frame most closely matches the (C) boundary conditions. A
regular steering head bearing set was used with a special shaft
to allow rotation at the head tube.
The results of one of several brittle coating tests are shown
in Fig. 6. The dark numbered lines are isoentatics. The lowest
numbered isoentatics indicate the earliest cracking zones.
Three separate zones of initial cracking are present, and these
zones correspond closely to the maximum stress points
computed from the finite beam element analysis (Fig. 4).
Also, the concentration of isoentatics within the fillet areas of
the joints is high. This indicates the intense stress con-
centration in these areas.
Calculation of the actual principal stresses at the initial
cracking zones is somewhat uncertain. Principal stresses on
the first isoentatic line may be easily calculated by a simple
modification of equation (1), noting that magnitude of stress
at a point increases linearly with the load. The stresses inside
the first isoentatic can only be approximated, however. A
simple interpolation technique can be used to approximate the
load at which the first crack appears. Errors up to 10 percent
are possible (assuming no error in ef) when 90 N increments of
load are utilized. For a 445 N pedal load, a sample of the
stresses calculated in this manner at the "hot spots" 1, 2, and
3 is given in Table 6. These values vary greatly from the finite
element results mainly due to the stress concentration of the
joints.
Due to problems with temperature control, thickness of the
coating, and coating creep, stress values from three different
Stresscoat tests varied up to about 6.9 MPa. Therefore
Stresscoat magnitudes of stress can be accepted with limited
confidence. To obtain higher accuracy in principal stress
magnitudes, small (1.6 mm) strain gages oriented to measure
principal stresses were mounted in the maximum stress areas
delineated by the Stresscoat tests. Results for the 445 N pedal
load are given in Table 6. The strain gage results must be
considered the most accurate values. Note that only the (ffi5)3
value agrees well with the Stresscoat determinations.
The Stresscoat test results correlate well with the maximum
Journal of Mechanical Design
stress points predicted by the finite element program for the
left pedal load. Accordingly, the finite beam element method
appears adequate for the prediction of trouble spots in a space
frame. The actual values of stress from the (C) boundary
conditions do not agree with the strain gage measured values
because stress concentration at the joints is not accounted for
by the simple finite beam element theory.
Fatigue Analysis
Accurately estimating the fatigue life under the simple left
and right pedal loading would entail mounting strain gages in
all areas of maximum stress concentration. Left and right
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020
pedal loads would then be applied and the maximum mean
and alternating principal stress would be measured. Inasmuch
as the principal stress under a left pedal load was measured in
the testing reported herein, these data are only partially
available.
Despite the lack of complete data, the principal stresses
under a right pedal load can be approximated by defining
stress concentration factors K,
(ji^gage
K,= (2)
(a,,) STAN
for left pedal loads. Because stress concentration is primarily
geometry dependent, the stress concentration factor for a
particular region is not expected to vary under right and left
pedal loads. Accordingly, principal stresses from a right pedal
load may be obtained by computing the principal stresses in
"hot spot" areas from STAN and then multiplying these by
the appropriate value of Ks.
Comparing computed stress values at the joint interfaces
for boundary conditions (C) (see Table 4) with the ex-
perimental values, stress concentration factors at the "hot
spots" are
(AT,), =1.76
(tf,) 2 =3.04
(AT, ) 3 =2.56.
Recall that boundary condition changes did not have a large
effect on the stress state; stress concentration factors would
not be expected to change appreciably. Using boundary
condition (A) results, which most closely approximate an
actual bicycle, the corrected predicted stresses for a left pedal
load become
(ff„),=41.8MPa
((7^)2 = 35.0 MPa
(a, J 3 =28.1 MPa
Because an actual bicycle frame failed at the seat tube
connection to the bottom bracket, the fatigue life of the frame
at that point ("hot spot" 1) is of interest. Using the ap-
propriate value of Ks to correct the STAN computed stresses
for the right pedal load, the stress at point 1 ranges between
the values
(°\S)L: 83.6 MPa
(O]S)R: -45.2 MPa
during the pedalling cycle for pedal loads of 890 N. This
loading magnitude is realistic according to Soden and
Adeyefa [12] for riding on a 1 to 10 incline. The fact that
these stresses represent the maxima and minima of the
principal stress was shown by simulating several loading
conditions intermediate between horizontal left and
horizontal right pedal positions. Values of o^ are less than 1.5
percent of au and can be neglected. The mean and alternating
components of the principal stress are
, = 18.8 MPa
Oh = 64.4 MPa.
OCTOBER 1981, Vol. 1 0 3 / 9 0 5
 Modified Goodman Diagram
6061 Aluminum Frame, 4043 Weld Filler
Mean Stress, MPa
Fig. 7 Fatigue diagram for aluminum frame joint. Modified Goodman
Line corresponds to safety factor of 1.
To determine the fatigue life of the joint, the values above
are plotted on a fatigue diagram. In Fig. 7, two Modified
Goodman lines corresponding to a safety factor of 1 have
been drawn. One corresponds to 6061-T6 Aluminum with
4043 filler in the as-welded condition (ultimate tensile strength
Su = 213.7 MPa [15]) and the other is for the T6 re-heat-
treated case (Su = 303.4 MPa [16]). The resulting alternating
fatigue strength values are 70.7 MPa and 68.7 MPa for the as-
welded and heat treated cases, respectively.
Fatigue life data for welded aluminum is somewhat sparse,
and re-heat treated weld fatigue data are virtually nonexistent.
Because the tensile properties of T6 heat treated welds almost
match those of solid 6061-T6 alloy, a fatigue life curve for
pure 6061-T6 is expected to closely approximate the actual
heat treated weld behavior. Fatigue data for the as-welded
case were found [15] and are plotted in Fig. 8 along with the
fatigue life line for the 6061-T6 alloy [17].
Applying the alternating fatigue strengths found previously
to the respective plots in Fig. 8 shows that life for the joint of
the test frame is greater than 108 cycles in both cases of weld
treatment. Because 108 cycles is roughly equivalent to 3 x 105
km of riding for a typical 10-speed bicycle, the frame certainly
seems adequately designed for the simple pedal load analyzed.
Therefore, it is possible that the in-service frame failure was
solely due to the stress concentrations caused by the presence
of weld beads (the test frame studied herein had smooth
joints), and grinding of the welds may provide a simple
solution to the fatigue problem. It is also possible that a more
severe loading condition was experienced by the frame which
failed than was analyzed.
Concluding Remarks
1. Frame Loading. In the actual process of riding a
bicycle, the frame experiences many different types of
loading. Seat loads, handlebar loads, and loads due to road
irregularities may all affect the frame stresses. Even normal
pedalling involves more complex loading besides a simple
vertical load, especially when toeclips are used to pull on the
pedals, as well as push. Therefore, a frame actually sees a
spectrum of loads applied at various points. More exact
fatigue analysis may involve the study of such a loading
spectrum and the cumulative fatigue damage that results. A
probabilistic approach may prove useful for this problem. In
order to employ such a method, a large data base of rider
behavior, typical road surfaces, and other factors affecting
riding loads would be needed.
In light of the requirements of the probabilistic approach,
the analysis method described herein, applied to other loading
conditions, may provide enough information to design a
frame in a much shorter time. Superposition of several
906/Vol. 103, OCTOBER 1981
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020
1.51 104 10 s lo« 10J 10» i09
Number of Cycles to Failure
Fig. 8 Rotating beam fatigue curves for 6061-T6 aluminum, transverse
butt welds, 4043 filler wire
loading conditions may be used to obtain a better estimate of
fatigue life for a given frame configuration. Dynamic analysis
of the frame-rider system may be used to determine maximum
forces imparted to the frame. Frame stresses could then be
computed as discussed.
2. Fatigue Data. During the literature search phase of
the project, a large deficiency was found in available data on
aluminum fatigue behavior. Welded aluminum data were
especially difficult to locate, and in several cases different
quantitative data sources were contradictory. Because
aluminum is becoming much more popular as a structural
material, a clear, concise, and complete source of fatigue data
is greatly needed. Without such data, fatigue performance of
aluminum structures can be predicted with limited accuracy.
References
1 Hughes, K., and Hull, M.L., "Efficiency of Aluminum Bicycle
Frames," Dept. of Mech. Engr. Report, University of California, Davis, Mar.
1977.
2 Mouritsen, J., and Hull, M.L., "Construction of an Aluminum Bicycle
Frame," Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Report, University of California,
Davis, Apr. 1977.
3 Burke, L.P., "The Development of a High Performance Bicycle Frame
Using a New Chrome. Molybdenum Seamless Tubing," presented at ASM
Conference in Materials Innovations in Sporting Goods, Cleveland, Oct. 1976.
4 Bouwkamp, J.G., "Concept of Tubular Joint Design," Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. ST 2, Apr. 1964, pp. 77-101.
5 Sharp, M.L., and Nordmark, G.E., "Fatigue Strength of Welded
Tubular Aluminum Truss," Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 103,
No. ST 8, Aug. 1977, pp. 1619.
6 White, A., and Patel, N.M., "Brittle Lacquer Studies and Recom-
mendations for Strengthening Rectangular Tubular Joints," Fifth Offshore
Technology Conference, Proceedings Preprints, No. OTC 1822,1973.
7 Pan, R.B., and Plummer, F.B., "A Fracture Mechanics Approach to
Non-overlapping Tubular K-Joint Fatigue Life Prediction," Eighth Offshore
Technology Conference, Proceedings Preprints, No. OTC 2645,1976.
8 Greimann, L.F., DeHart, R.C., Blackstone, W.R., Stewart, B., and
Scales, R.E., "Finite Element Analysis of Complex Joints," Fifth Offshore
Technology Conference, Proceedings Preprints, No. OTC 1823,1973.
9 Kuang, J.G., Potvin, A.B., and Leick, R.D., "Stress Concentration in
Tubular Joints," Seventh Offshore Technology Conference, Proceedings
Preprints, No. TC 2205,1975.
10 Liaw, C.Y., Litton, R.W., and Reimer, R.B., "Improved Finite
Elements for Analysis of Welded Tubular Joints," Eighth Offshore
Technology Conference, Proceedings Preprints, No. OTC 2642,1976.
11 Sikes, D.F. and Beadle, C.W., STAN: A Three-Dimensional Finite
Beam Element Code for Interactive Computer-Aided Design, Dept. of Mech.
Engr. Report, University of California, Davis, Oct. 1978.
12 Soden, P.D., and Adeyefa, B.A., "Forces Applied to a Bicycle During
Normal Cycling," Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 12,1979, pp. 527-541.
13 Gregor, R.J., "A Biomedical Analysis of Lower Limb Action During
Cycling at Four Different Loads," Ph.D. thesis in Physical Education, Penn-
sylvania State University, Aug. 1976.
14 Durelli, A.J., Phillips, E.A., and Tsao, C.H., Introduction to the
Transactions of the AS ME
Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill,
1958, Chapter 15.
15 Person, N.L., and Wolfer, G.C., "Fatigue Properties of Butt Weld-
ments in 6061-T6 Plate," Interim Project Report #MS DR 59065, Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Co., July 24, 1959.
16 Welding Kaiser Aluminum, First Edition, Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Sales, Inc., 1969.
17 Craighead, CM., Eastwood, L.W., and Lorig, C.H., "An Appraisal of
the Usefulness of Aluminum Alloys for Supersonic Aircraft and Guided Missile
Construction," Rand Report #R-104, The Rand Corp., Aug. 8,1948, p. 57.

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/103/4/901/5592886/901_1.pdf by University Of Wisconsin Madison user on 04 March 2020

Change of Address Form for Journal of Mechanical Design

Present Address—Affix Label or Copy Information from Label

If you are planning

To Move, Please
Notify The
ASME-Order Dep't
345 East 47th St.
N.Y..N.Y. 10017

Don't Wait! I^rint New Address Below

Don't Miss An Issue!
Allow Ample Time to Name
Effect Change.
Atten finn
Addn ;ss
City State or Country ZiD

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 1981, Vol. 103/907