Report Ansys Draft 1
Report Ansys Draft 1
Group 8
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
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.
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
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.
6
Figure 2 : 3D sketch of bicycle frame from research
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.
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.
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.
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
(%)
24.96
Vertical
Impact
8.58
Horizontal
Impact
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Von-
Mises
Stress
(Mpa)
Total
Deformat
ion
(mm)
Safety
Factor
3
Comparison of models in horizontal impact scenario
23
Table
Horizontal Impact
Von-Mises
Stress
(Mpa)
Total
Deformati
on
(mm)
Safety
Factor
24
Table
Comparison of models in vertical impact scenario
Vertical Impact
Von-
Mises
Stress
(Mpa)
Total
Deforma
tion
(mm)
Safety
Factor
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
27
Figure 22 : Thickness of 2mm
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