Finite Element Analysis:

A Bicycle Frame

Heath A. Folmsbee
ME 3614
02 / 28 / 02

Heath Folmsbee
ME 3614
02 / 26 / 02
Finite Element Analysis: A bicycle frame
ME 3614
Problem:
In the design and engineering of products, the key is optimization as well as
safety. In order that the design team might accomplish this, one of the steps they need to
take is to look at the critical point(s) of their design, and optimize the product according
to that point or points. In this case we are given a bicycle frame to analyze, and optimize.
The frame is made of high carbon steel, and has a load placed down at the seat, and
handle bars positions. If the deflections of the members of the frame are excessive, or if
the critical member(s) fail, then the frame needs to be redesigned with more stiffness. The
opposite is the case if the frame does not deflect. In this case, the frame will be stable but
will be over-designed and therefore expensive and or heavy
Input Values: Case #1
High Carbon Steel Tubing:
Modulus of Elasticity, E, kpsi:
O.D. (outer diameter), in:
Thickness, in:
Area, A, in2:
Moment of Inertia, Ix, in4:
C, Max distance from axis:

29.2 x 106 psi (as per corrected table E-23)

1in
0.062in
0.1827in2
0.02018in4
0.5in

Loading:
1.) 375lbs* at (10in, 15in, 0in)**
2.) 62.5lbs. at (36in, 15in, 0in)
Restraints:
1.) Rear wheel pivot: restrained in x and y.
2.) Front wheel pivot: restrained in y only.
After all of the above initial conditions were established, the Finite element input
program was opened. These values were entered at the appropriate times and places and
the following output screen was displayed.

Once this was completed the input program was shut down and the computational
modeling program was opened and then evaluated the bicycle design in case #1. After the
computational model was completed, the output program was opened and displayed the
following information about the case #1 bike design deformation and stress distribution
throughout the frame.

Deformation Model: Case #1

Stress Distribution throughout the frame: Case #1

The following are tables of displacements in all three Cartesian axes and member
stresses respectively.
Displacements:
Nodes
1
2
3
4
5
6

Case #1
X - Disp.
0.0000E+00
6.3019E-04
9.8870E-03
9.3321E-03
1.0018E-02
7.6557E-02

(All Displacements are in inches)

Y Disp.
0.0000E+00
-1.2514E-02
-7.9643E-02
-2.2845E-02
-2.2554E-02
0.0000E+00

Z Disp.
-6.3559E-04
-9.6208E-04
-6.8507E-04
-2.3662E-04
1.0324E-03
7.8152E-03

Stresses in Frame Elements:

Element# Axial
Stress
1
1020
2
-1850
3
587
4
-772
5
940
6
-548
7
-820
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Node 1
-240
240
X
X
X
X
X

Case #1

(All stresses are in psi)

Bending Stress at the Nodes

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5
769
X
X
X
X
-159
X
X
-1360
881
X
X
X
722
-1350
X
2130
X
X
-5280
X
X
-1350
-1040
X
X
X
-15700

Node 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
0

Shear
Stress
-12.4
4.89
-29.1
21.7
88.8
631
-273

Combined Stress (psi)

1789
2090
1468
2122
6220
10948
16520

In this case since the combined stress lies on the x-axis of all of the failure theory
graphs; DET, MSST, and MNST, the von mises stress will be the same in all of these for
this frame. As a result of that we can use the combined stresses in determining the factor
of safety of each member. The combined stress is found but combining the absolute
values of the largest bending stress and axial stress in each element. The absolute value is
used because no matter what, the bending stress is going to be the same quantity above
and below the central axis of the element. Therefore either above or below the central
axis, at some point the axial stress and the bending stress will have the same sign and will
therefore produce the largest valued combined stress. Another reason that the absolute
value was used is because the sign does not matter in considering the factor of safety.
These factors can be seen in the following table.
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Factors of Safety
61.48
52.63
74.93
51.837
17.68
10.047
6.65 [Critical Member]

Summary: Case #1
In conclusion, the frame is extremely over-designed, especially when member 3
has a factor of safety of 74. There is no need for this, as it is a waste of money and
materials, aside from adding weight to the overall frame. Though none of the
displacements are near excessive, the front fork (element 7) is the most flexible, and
would be most likely the first to fail. The frame would then need to be redesigned to
accommodate this critical member and that of the over-designed members. Also although
buckling was not considered as a factor in this design analysis, it is of equal and
depending on the situation higher importance than yield failure.

Appendix A
(Alternative designs)

Input Values: Case #2

High Carbon Steel Tubing:
Modulus of Elasticity, E, kpsi:
O.D. (outer diameter), in:
Thickness, in:
Area, A, in2:
Moment of Inertia, Ix, in4:
C, Max distance from axis:

29.2 x 106 psi (as per corrected table E-23)

1in
0.035in
0.1061in2
0.0123in4
0.5in

Loading:
1.) 375lbs* at (10in, 15in, 0in)**
3.) 62.5lbs. at (36in, 15in, 0in)
Restraints:
3.) Rear wheel pivot: restrained in x and y.
4.) Front wheel pivot: restrained in y only.
After all of the initial conditions were established, and instituted into the model,
the computational modeling program was opened and then evaluated the bicycle design
in case #2. After the computational model was completed, the output program was
opened and displayed the following information about the case #2 bike design
deformation and stress distribution throughout the frame.
Deformation Model: Case #2

Stress Distribution throughout the frame: Case #2

The following are tables of displacements in all three Cartesian axes and member
stresses respectively.
Displacements:
Case #2
(All Displacements are in inches)
Nodes
1
2
3
4
5
6

X - Disp.
0.0000E+00
1.0849E-03
1.6291E-02
1.5336E-02
1.6482E-02
1.2572E-01

Y Disp.
0.0000E+00
-2.0667E-02
-1.3224E-02
-3.7549E-02
-3.7059E-02
0.0000E+00

Z Disp.
-1.0539E-03
-1.5797E-03
-1.1254E-03
-3.8086E-04
1.7009E-03
1.2829E-02

Stresses in Frame Elements:

Element# Axial
Stress
1
1760
2
-3190
3
-1010
4
-1330
5
1620
6
-943
7
-1410
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Node 1
-394
394
X
X
X
X
X

Case #2

(All stresses are in psi)

Bending Stress at the Nodes

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5
1250
X
X
X
X
-278
X
X
-2230
1450
X
X
X
1170
-2210
X
3480
X
X
-8670
X
X
-2210
-17000
X
X
X
-25700

Node 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
0

Shear
Stress
-21.1
8.65
-50.2
37.3
153
1090
-471

Combined Stress (psi)

3010
3584
3240
3540
10290
17945
27110

In this case since the combined stress lies on the x-axis of all of the failure theory
graphs; DET, MSST, and MNST, the von mises stress will be the same in all of these for
this frame. As a result of that we can use the combined stresses in determining the factor
of safety of each member. The combined stress is found but combining the absolute
values of the largest bending stress and axial stress in each element. The absolute value is
used because no matter what, the bending stress is going to be the same quantity above
and below the central axis of the element. Therefore either above or below the central
axis, at some point the axial stress and the bending stress will have the same sign and will
therefore produce the largest valued combined stress. Another reason that the absolute
value was used is because the sign does not matter in considering the factor of safety.
These factors can be seen in the following table.
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Factors of Safety
36.54
30.69
33.95
31.07
10.68
6.13
4.03 [Critical Member]

Summary: Case #2
In conclusion, this is more on target than the last frame, with the critical members
factor of safety decreasing from 6.65 to 4.03. Though the overall design of this frame is
more feasible and practical than the design #1, it still has a long way to go. In this case it
may be better to redesign each member so that they all have a factor of safety that are all
in the same ballpark.

Input Values: Case #3

High Carbon Steel Tubing:
Modulus of Elasticity, E, kpsi:
O.D. (outer diameter), in:
Thickness, in:
Area, A, in2:
Moment of Inertia, Ix, in4:
C, Max distance from axis:

29.2 x 106 psi (as per corrected table E-23)

1in
0.062in
0.1827in2
0.02018in4
0.5in

Loading:
1.) 375lbs
2.) 62.5lbs.
Restraints:
1.) Rear wheel pivot: restrained in x and y.
2.) Front wheel pivot: restrained in y only.

After all of the initial conditions were established, and instituted into the model, the
computational modeling program was opened and then evaluated the bicycle design in
case #2. After the computational model was completed, the output program was opened

and displayed the following information about the case #2 bike design deformation and
stress distribution throughout the frame.
Deformation Model: Case #3

Stress Distribution throughout the frame: Case #3

Stresses in Frame Elements:

Element# Axial
Stress
1
2520
2
-3130
3
-874
4
-2340
5
2410
6
-1350
7
-314
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Node 1
-594
594
X
X
X
X
X

Case #2

(All stresses are in psi)

Bending Stress at the Nodes

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5
787
X
X
X
X
-996
X
X
-4180
3280
X
X
X
2280
-3770
X
4970
X
X
-1030
X
X
-3770
-25300
X
X
X
-35600

Node 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
0

Shear
Stress
-27.5
38.2
-255
60.8
157
1820
-471

Combined Stress (psi)

1039
4126
5054
6310
3440
26650
35914

In this case since the combined stress lies on the x-axis of all of the failure theory
graphs; DET, MSST, and MNST, the von mises stress will be the same in all of these for
this frame. As a result of that we can use the combined stresses in determining the factor
of safety of each member. The combined stress is found but combining the absolute
values of the largest bending stress and axial stress in each element. The absolute value is
used because no matter what, the bending stress is going to be the same quantity above
and below the central axis of the element. Therefore either above or below the central
axis, at some point the axial stress and the bending stress will have the same sign and will
therefore produce the largest valued combined stress. Another reason that the absolute
value was used is because the sign does not matter in considering the factor of safety.
These factors can be seen in the following table.
Element#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Factors of Safety
105.87
26.66
21.76
17.43
31.97
4.12
3.06 [Critical Element]

Appendix B
(Hand Calculations)