0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views32 pages

Report Ansys Draft 1

Ansys

Uploaded by

Amirul Jasni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views32 pages

Report Ansys Draft 1

Ansys

Uploaded by

Amirul Jasni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 32

UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING


PROJECT: ANALYSIS OF BICYCLE FRAME

Subject Code BMCG

Subject Name FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Session/ SESSION 2022-2023 / SEMESTER I


Semester
Courses BMCG

Lecturer PROF. MADYA DR MOHD JUZAILA ABD LATIF

Group 8

Group Members Name of Student Sectio Matric


n Number
(1) WAN MUHAMMAD AZIM BIN WAN 3 B042010104
AZMAN
(2) MUHAMMAD AMIRUL FAHMI BIN 3 B042010094
JASNI
(3) SHARVESHINI A/P SHANMUGAM 3 B042010120

1
INDEX
No. Content Page
Number
1 Content / Abstract 2–3
2 1.0 Introduction / Background 4
Introduction on specific topic
Previous FE studies on specific topic from reliable sources
Highlight any related issues

3 2.1 Methodology: 3D Model 5–6


References or specification
Method to construct 3D model
4 2.2 Methodology: FE Model Verification 7 – 10
References
Verification Process
Comparison to similar established works
5 2.3 Methodology: FE Model 1) References 11 – 18
Meshing / quality
Loading and boundary
Material properties

6 3.0 Results and Discussion 19 – 27


Strength, stiffness and safety factor
Comparisons of the present
Rigorous discussion on the results related to the theory and
previous studies
Good engineering judgement with the scientific theory or
science
7 4.0 Conclusion 28
Highlights the important of the present findings.
Recommendation or future study.

2
8 5.0 References 29

3
ABSTRACT

Using an aluminum 6061 T6 kind of material, an inquiry has been conducted to explore the
comparative behavior for a standard bicycle frame under a variety of assessed scenarios. Solidworks
2022 is used for the bicycle frame modeling, and ANSYS 2023 R1 is used for the analysis. The
analysis of the bicycle's internal stress is done in relation to the frame's performance in terms of static
strength and applied load. This study uses Aluminum 6061-T6 in ANSYS to perform static structural
analysis of the bicycle frame under various load circumstances, including static start-up, vertical
impact, horizontal impact steady state pedaling, and rear wheel braking. Additionally, we determine
the ideal cross-sectional thickness and shape for bicycle frame.

Keywords: Finite Element Analysis (FEA), ANSYS, Al 6061-T2

4
1.0 INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND

The structural research of the frame is an important element in the design process of a bicycle. The
finite element method was used to analyze the structural properties of a bicycle frame. Solidworks
2022 software was utilized on this type of bicycle frames,. The frame was analysed using ANSYS
2023 R1 software. The main idea is to make those that bicycles should be light and robust at the same
time led to the development of model material. Examining several bicycle frame models based on
each frame's cross-sectional area was the goal of the study.

Our research on equivalent (von-Mises) stress analysis in ANSYS indicates that aluminum 6061-T6
alloys are lightweight but highly deformable. It has been found that the bicycle frame's top tube
experiences the most stress. Derek Covill's work describes how to utilize a finite element model to
anticipate how common bicycle frames will behave under various observed load scenarios. As a
result, it is decided that more research is required to fully understand how frame strength can be
affected by tube profiles, selection, and load distribution between tubes. It is also necessary to
analyze the modes of failure for various bicycle designs under both typical and extreme usage in
order to comprehend the implications of design on safety.

According to the FEA results, the bicycle frame experiences the least stresses, and the factor of safety
is likewise much above the limit, indicating that the stresses are less than the ultimate strength of the
material. The bicycle frame's design is strong as a result. The results are applicable if the boundary
conditions and assumptions are correct.

5
2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 METHODOLOGY : 3D MODEL

i. References or specification
The frame, which includes the head tube, seat tube, top tube, bottom tube, chain stay, and seat stay, is
the primary component, according to our reference research. A 2D drawing was created in
accordance with the design specification, as seen in figure 1 below.

Figure 1: 2D sketch of bicycle frame


Design Parameters Of Bike Frame
PARAMETER VALUE
Head tube angle 73.50
Seat tube angle 73.50
Seat tube length 580 mm
Top tube length 570 mm
Chain stay length 360 mm
Head tube length 120 mm
Top tube 570 mm
Bottom tube 670 mm

6
Figure 2 : 3D sketch of bicycle frame from research

ii. Method to construct 3D Model


Using Solidworks 2021 software, we created our 3D model drawing by referring to the dimensions
we obtained from our research report.

Figure 3: Our 3D sketch of bicycle frame

7
The material we are using to construct this bicycle frame is Aluminium 6061-T6. Firstly, the
head tube. From the top plane, create sketch then start with a circle with diameter 25 mm-40
mm. Then extrude it about 130 mm. Next, pedal point. On the Z plan, sketch the pedal point
with the diameter 52.5 mm – 75 mm. Then extrude it about 70 mm. For the next part is rear
wheel. On a specific plane make a circle with the diameter of 35mm – 50 mm and offset to body
about 120 mm. Extrude it to 40 mm on the both sides of the sketching. Other than that, the top
tube. Make a circle with the inner diameter of 25 mm and outer diameter of 50 mm then extrude
it to 670 mm on the both sides. Last but not least, for the bottom tube, make a circle with the
inner diameter of 25 mm and outer diameter with 35mm. Extrude it to 570 mm for the both
sides of tube.

2.2 METHODOLOGY : FE MODEL VERIFICATION

i. References
Finding the optimal model to maintain the sustainability of the frame is the aim of this study. It is
desired to provide a framework of rules and specifications that may be used to ensure that the finite
element method operates within the necessary bounds of accuracy, dependability, and repeatability.
Before being incorporated into the solution, verification and validation procedures must be completed
in order to do the analysis and increase accuracy. This process helps to boost confidence that the
model's computation stays within the required range. The information needed to solve the analysis
correctly and accurately is provided by the verification process, whereas the validation phase
provides evidence of how well the model matches the experimental test.

8
ii. Verification process
We build a three-dimensional (3D) model using the same dimensions as the study paper's 3D model,
applying the loading condition and boundary as the image below illustrates. Four conditions—static
start-up, vertical impact, steady state pedaling, and finally horizontal impact—are compared using the
boundary and loading conditions from the five boundary and loading conditions below.

Figure 4: Loading and Boundary Condition

9
a) Static Start-up
We applied fixed support to the head tube and the inner surface of the rear wheel, respectively. Next,
we exerted 700 N of stress on the seat tube's upper surface and 200N of force on the lower bracket.

b) Vertical Impact
We applied fixed support to the head tube and the inner surface of the rear wheel, respectively. Next,
we exerted 2250 N of force onto the seat tube's top.

c) Horizontal Impact
We applied fixed support to the head tube and the inner surface of the rear wheel, respectively. Next,
we applied 2250N horizontally to the front dropout while keeping the rear dropout from moving in
any direction.

c) Steady state pedalling


- takde point lagi….

10
iii. Comparison to similar established works
After we applied the boundary and loading condition on our 3D model based on how the
research applied to their 3D model, we got the result of stress(von-Mises) and total deformation
for 3 condition which are static start-up, vertical impact and horizontal impact. Then, we
calculate the percentage of error between both as shown in table below.

Table 1 : Verification

Analysis Condition Result from analysis Result from our model Error
s percentag
e
(%)

Stress (von- Static 23.04


Mises) Startup

24.96

Vertical
Impact

8.58
Horizontal
Impact

Total Static 11.68


Deformatio Startup
n

11
11.99
Vertical
Impact

1.50

Horizontal
Impact

12
ii. Meshing / quality
In this study we assume that the best element size should not be exceed 1% allowable change.
Firstly, we put 20% as our initial allowable change. From that, we apply 5mm size of element
for static startup condition then we notice that the percentage is 0.28849. Then, we try to change
the number size of element to 3mm and we got 0.15119 while for 9mm we got 0.95056 and
lastly for 10mm we got 1.0494. So, among all percentage result we got for static start-up
condition we can assume that 9mm is the best number size of element for this condition because
its approach 1% allowable change.

Figure 8: 3mm number of element Figure 9 : 5mm number of element

Figure 10: 9mm number of element Figure 11: 10mm number of element

Next, we apply 4mm size of element for horizontal impact condition then we notice that the
percentage is 0.51111. Then, we try to change the number size of element to 5mm and we got
0.90966 while for 6mm we got 1.1048. So, among all percentage result we got for horizontal

13
impact condition we can assume that 5mm is the best number size of element for this condition
because its approach 1% allowable change compared to other size.

Figure 12: 4mm number of element Figure 13 : 5mm number of element

Figure 14 : 6mm number of element

Then, we apply 5 mm size of element for vertical impact condition then we notice that the
percentage is 0.55258. Then, we try to change the number size of element to 8 mm and we got
0.85176 while for 9 mm we got 1.0306. So, among all percentage result we got for vertical
impact condition we can assume that 8mm is the best number size of element for this condition
because its approach 1% allowable change compared to other size.

14
Figure 15 : 5mm number of element Figure 16 : 8mm number of element

Figure 17 : 9mm number of element

Last but not least, between 5 mm, 8 mm and 9 mm the best element mesh size that we assume
from the three condition which is static start-up, horizontal impact and vertical impact, we can
conclude that 5 mm is the best element mesh size since it is the smallest number between those
three. So, we use 5 mm as the size of element to do meshing for our 3D modelling.

15
iii. Loading and boundary
a. Static Start-up
We applied fixed support at inner surface of rear wheel and head tube respectively. Then, we
applied 1600 N force on the top of seat tube and 200 N force on the bottom bracket.

Figure 18 : Static Start-up

b. Vertical Impact
We applied fixed support at inner surface of rear wheel and head tube respectively. Then, we
applied 2500 N force on the top of seat tube.

Figure 19 : Vertical Impact

16
c. Horizontal Impact
We applied fixed support at inner surface of rear wheel and head tube respectively. Then, we
applied 2500 N to the front dropout horizontally with the rear dropout’s constraint from any
translational motion.

Figure 20 : Horizontal Impact

17
iv. Material properties
The material use in our 3D model is aluminium alloy 6061-T6. Figure below shows the material
properties that used in bicycle frame analysis.

Figure 21 : Material Properties

2.3 METHODOLOGY : FE MODEL

i. References
We next applied the boundary and loading condition to our 3D model in the same manner as before
after receiving confirmation and validation on how to do so based on our research report. As seen in
the pictures below, we have three versions where we have modified the top and bottom tubes from
bicycle frames with different cross-sectional shapes.

18
Figure 5 : Oval cross-section

19
Figure 6 : Hexagon cross-section

20
Figure 7 : rectangle cross-section

21
3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

In essence, we are contrasting three models with the same goal in mind—to identify the ideal bicycle
frame cross-section form. First, we examine the differences in shape after applying a specific force
and amount of support to the frame in three distinct scenarios: vertical impact, steady state pedaling,
horizontal impact, and static startup. For instance, in a static starter scenario, the seat tube would
experience two forces: 700N at the top and 200N at the bottom. Subsequently, we compare the effects
of utilizing three other models, each with a different cross-section tube shape (oval, hexagonal, or
rectangular), on the same four scenarios. To achieve the best possible outcome, all other model
dimensions, including thickness and the aluminium 6061-T6 material utilized, are fixed to the
reference. We were able to achieve a number of significant results with the ASYS software, including
the stress, total deformation, and safety factor for each frame design. Different results will be
obtained when different cross-section shapes are employed in order to identify which shape is
superior in comparison to the others. Regarding the Von-Mises stress, the form that yields the highest
maximum stress value in each case is typically the best shape for a bicycle frame. The frame
performs better at withstanding force applied to it when its Von-Mises stress is lower, making it more
difficult for a bicycle to fracture or have other issues. Better performance for the bicycle model is
shown by the total deformation of the frames, which is based on the least amount of deformation
obtained. To ensure that we accomplish high efficiency of the product itself from all aspects, such as
practicality and boosting the model's strength, the best bicycle frame performance is really necessary.

…………………… lepak jap ade ayat yg tak siap lagi.. ade part comparison yg tak settle.. tapi
yg atas ni bole paraphrase dah…

22
Table
2
Comparison of models in static startup scenario
Static Start-up

Shareen’s model Samirah’s model Alif’s model (Ovate)


(Hexagon) (Triangle)

Von-
Mises
Stress
(Mpa)

61.751 31.957 33.175

Total
Deformat
ion
(mm)

0.059588 0.069338 0.068706

Safety
Factor

14.941 14.998 14.998

3
Comparison of models in horizontal impact scenario

23
Table
Horizontal Impact

Shareen’s model Samirah’s model Alif’s model (Ovate)


(Hexagon) (Triangle)

Von-Mises
Stress
(Mpa)

70.72 55.083 53.197

Total
Deformati
on
(mm)

0.15425 0.1831 0.16074

Safety
Factor

14.694 14.964 14.975

24
Table
Comparison of models in vertical impact scenario
Vertical Impact

Ajem’s model Fahmi’s model Shower’s model


(Hexagon) (Triangle) (Ovate)

Von-
Mises
Stress
(Mpa)

100.11 49.496 51.349

Total
Deforma
tion
(mm)

0.09817 0.10503 0.10481

Safety
Factor

14.735 14.978 14.979

25
Graph 1
Graph on Von-Mises Stress of models for each scenario

Graph 2
Graph on total deformation of models on each scenario

26
Graph 3

Graph on safety factor of models on each scenario


We mainly use yield strength of the material to get best model out of 3 models. Yield
strength indicates maximum stress or load that a solid material can withstand when it is
deformed within its elastic limit. The yield strength of the Aluminium 6061-T6 is
259.2MPa. From our result, the model that have Von-Mises stress far from yield strength
of the material and have lower total deformation is ovate model. from the ovate shape
seems to have the most suitable shape seem by the frame performance on each scenario
such as static startup, horizontal and vertical impact. The Von-Mises Stress obtained for
each scenario of the ovate shape is lower than other shapes which are 33.175MPa,
53.197MPa and 51.349MPa for static startup, horizontal and vertical impact scenario
respectively.
In the other hand, total deformation obtained for ovate shape are also below other shapes
for each scenario which are 0.068706mm, 0.16074mm and 0.10481mm for static startup,
horizontal and vertical impact scenario respectively. Results obtained proves us that
small changes in term of shape could make huge different of the result on the frame.
These results also clearly shows that ovate shape is the most suitable shape to be applied
on the bicycle tube compared to other shape from the analysis which is triangle and
hexagon shape.

27
Figure 22 : Thickness of 2mm

Figure 23 : Thickness of 3mm

28
Figure 24 : Thickness of 4mm

29
Tube thickness Static Startup

2 mm 14.987

3 mm 14.999

4 mm 14.998

Table 5
Safety factor of ovate model

Graph 4
Graph on safety factor of ovate models one each thickness
After we obtain the best model out of three model which is ovate shape tube, we do
further analysis on thickness by recreate the model with two different thicknesses with
the static start-up loading and boundary condition to compare with the initial thickness
which is 3 mm. From the result, the safety factor for 2mm thickness is 14.987 and for
4mm thickness is 14.998 while for 3mm thickness is 14.999. So, we can conclude that
the optimum thickness for best model is 3 mm since it has the highest safety factors
compared to others.

30
4.0 CONCLUSION

These days, the market is filled with a huge variety of bicycles. But by researching the
fundamental requirements, one can find the most effective kind of bicycle. Ensuring the
safety and non-harm to both the rider and others is crucial while using this technology. In
addition, high-quality materials have a direct impact on the bicycle's capacity to support
heavier loads in comparison to other models. Regarding needs for the future, perhaps in the
future we will be able to get bicycles with a higher safety factor and better quality materials
than the majority of them today, at a cheaper cost that will allow them to be broadly available.

Solidworks 2021 was utilized to model the bicycle frame for this project. Aluminum 6061-T6
was used in the design of the bicycle frame. In order to determine the equivalent stress (Von-
Mises), total deformation, and mesh convergence for each of the three models with distinct
cross-sectional shapes, we conduct analysis for this bicycle frame using various loading and
boundary conditions, such as static start-up, vertical impact, and horizontal impact. ANSYS
16.0 was used to assist with all of the analysis.

31
5.0 REFERENCES
Ashutosh Upadhyay, Amber Gupta (2021, October 10) .Comparative Analysis of
Different Cross-Sectional Bicycle Frames ,India. Retrieved (26/12/2022) from
https://www.ijrdet.com/files/Volume10Issue10/IJRDET_1021_04.pdf
Focus Technology Co., Ltd. (1998-2023). 6061 6063 T6 25mm Wardrobe Aluminum
Alloy Extrusion Round Tubes Aluminium Pipe for Bicycle Frame. Retrieved (10/1/2023)
from 6061 6063 T6 25mm Wardrobe Aluminum Alloy Extrusion Round Tubes
Aluminium Pipe for Bicycle Frame - China Pipe Tube and Aluminum Tube (made-in-
china.com)
Focus Technology Co., Ltd. (1998-2023). Factory 6061 6063 Extruded T5 Seamless
Aluminum Alloy Profile Round Tube for Bike Frame. Retrieved (10/1/2023) from
Factory
6061 6063 Extruded T5 Seamless Aluminum Alloy Profile Round Tube for Bike Frame -
China Corrugated Tube and Rectangular Tube (made-in-china.com)
[4] Halfords (2022), Adult bike Maximum weight limit. Retrieved (27/12/2022) from
https://www.halfords.com/bikes/faqs/adult-bike-maximum-weight-limit.html
[5] IJRDET. (2021, October 10). Comparative Analysis of Different Cross-Sectional
Bicycle
Frames. Retrieved (28/12/2022) from IJRDET_1021_04.pdf
[6] Sarath P (2021, June). Stress Analysis of Bicycle Frame using Different Materials by
FEA. Retrieved (26/12/2022) from
https://www.grdjournals.com/uploads/article/GRDJE/V06/I07/0016/GRDJEV06I070016
.pdf

32

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy