Finite Element Analysis - Bicycle Crank for Human Powered

Vehicle (HPV)

Name: Danish Javed

Student Number: 3405403

Date 16/03/2017
Table of Contents

Objectives .........................................................................................................3
The Component................................................................................................3
Boundary Conditions.......................................................................................4
Optimisation......................................................................................................9
Results and Conclusion..................................................................................16
Appendicies.....................................................................................................18

Page 2
Bicycle Objectives
- To use FEA to conduct a parametic linear structural analysis to analyse the stress and deformation
response of a high powered vehicle crank under the specified loading conditions.
- To optimise the component to minimise several objectives within the specified safety factor of 1
- To use Autodesk inventor stress analysis tool.

The Component
Component Dimensions
Figure 1 - Crank Technical
Drawing

The drawings here represent the

dimensions of the bicycle crank. All
measurements are done in mm and
angles in degrees.

Page 3
Material Properties
Table 1 - Material Properties
Material Youngs Poissons Shear Modulus Density (Kg/m3) Yield Strength Tensile
Modulus (GPa) Ratio (GPa) (MPa) Strength (MPa)
Aluminium 68.9 0.33 25.864 2700 275 310
6061
These values are taken from Autodesk Inventor 2018 material Library.

Boundary Conditions
Constraints
In order to avoid the impact of poissons effect, the following constraints were defined:
A pin constraints was applied to the main axle where the crank shaft and the crank itself
are connected
Frictionless constraints on each of the screw holes.
Fixed contains on each of the chamfered screw holes.

Loads
A Remote (resultant) force has been applied to the pedal hole axle of 2000N. This load has been
used as it has been recommended by the client themselves. Research was tried to find a force
value with some critiqued research however this was not possible as most values were found
within forums with no background research.
The 2000N force has been applied 50mm relative to axial plane (Z Axis). The load will be applied
also at 3 different positions, at 0, 45 and 90 from the horizontal. This is shown in figure 2 - 4).

As the force is applied at several different positions, the resultant forces are given in table 2:

Angle (Relative to
Force
the horizontal)
Resultant Force X Y Z
0 2000N -2000 0 0
45 2000N -10002 -10002 0
90 2000N 0 -2000 0
Table 2 - Force Calculations

Figure 5 -
As the force is applied on the
pedal, the forces used within
Figure 2 - 0 from the analysis is a remote force
the horizontal 50mm away from the crank
arm. This is constant through
all angles of force.

Figure 3 -
45 from the
horizontal
Figure 4 -
90 from the
horizontal
Page 4
Mesh Settings Figure 6

To determine a more optimised setting (Figure 6)

for the crank, the default settings are used initially
to create a base line result.

For the optimisation, certain mesh settings have been adjusted for improved values. Local mesh
control have been added near holes to improve the mesh distribution. Figure 7 is 1mm local mesh
around any curved paths.

Figure 7

Convergence:
Figure 8 - 0 to the horizontal

- Under default convergence settings,

inventor uses 3 levels of p refinements for
convergence.

- Initial results with no h refinements

showed a convergence rate of 4.390%.

- With a maximum 10 h refinements

and a convergence rate goal of 0%, the
convergence achieved after 7 iterations.
Figure 9
Figure 10 Page 5
 Figure 11 - 45 to the horizontal

Figure 9

Figure 13

- Under default convergence settings,

inventor uses 3 levels of p refinements for
convergence.

- Initial results with no h refinements

showed a convergence rate of 4.702%.

- With a maximum 10 h refinements

and a convergence rate goal of 0%, the
convergence achieved after 6 iterations.
Figure 12

Figure 14 - 90 to the horizontal

- Under default convergence settings,

inventor uses 3 levels of p refinements for
convergence.

- Initial results with no h refinements

showed a convergence rate of 5.105%.

- With a maximum 9 h refinements

and a convergence rate goal of 2%, the
convergence achieved after 8 iterations.

Figure 15 Figure 16
Page 6
Material Choice
As the client is trying to optimise the HPV crank, other than shape adjustment, material adjust
can be applied. Due to this, various materials can be tested with the original design to find a
possible effective part in comparison to aluminium. To find a comparative result, safety factor of
each material with the same boundary conditions will be taken. The safety factor simulation can
be found in appendix D
Table 3 - Comparison of Materials

Material Choice Safety Factor

Aluminium 6061 0.84
Mild Steel 0.64
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) 0.98
As shown in table 3, mild steel is providing a low safety factor which therefore will not be
considered in the comparison.

CFRP is providing the best safety factor in comparison to the other materials however other
conditions are also present with this material.

As the safety factor is below 1 albeit only by 0.02, CFRP could pass its yield stress value.
On metals such as aluminium, stress passing the yield stress causes deformation, approaching
fracture once passing the ultimate tensile stress, However, CFRP is a brittle which means that
once the yield stress is reached and/or passed, the materials fails with fracture instantly. (See
figure _)

This could be hazardous to the HPV rider as during the use of the product and the crank itself, high
stress values will be occurring. If aluminium was used, the material if approaching the yield stress
will start to deform which would inform the rider of the failure. With CFRP, once yield stress has
been reached, the material will shatter which could injure the rider. Due to this case, CFRP will
not be considered. In conclusion, Aluminium 6061 will be continued in the study as the assigned
material for the crank

Elasticity and Instant fracture at failure

permanent with CFRP
deformation
occurring at
failure with
mild steel

Figure 17 - Stress-Strain Graph for CFRP, GFRP and Mild Steel Page 7
Assumptions
Within this analysis, the following assumptions have been taken:

1. Material -
Uniformity - Assuming the materials properties are uniform and that there are no
defects in the material.
Accuracy - Assuming that the material database within Autodesk Inventor 2017 has
correct and updated information about Aluminium 6063 when comparable to real life
material properties

2. Geometry -
Precision - Assuming the tolerances in the part has a small resolution which allows it
to be as definite as possible to the real part.
Surface Finish - Assuming the surface finish is as similar to the real part to imitate
the real influence in aesthetics as well as function with surface contact

3. Boundary Conditions -
Practicality - Assuming the loads and constrains applied to the part imitate real life
conditions when the part is in use

Initial Results
Table 4 - Benchmark Results

Results (3 Sig. Fig.)

Value
0 to the 45 to the 90 to the
horizontal horizontal horizontal

Von Mises Stress (MPa) 298 362 297

Displacement (mm) 2.87 2.14 0.499

Minimum Safety Factor 0.921 0.843 0.927

Von Mises Stress

The safety factor of a part represents the ratio between the actual stress and the yield stress
occurring on a part. This value is a universal representation when comparing various designs.
Safety Factor is calculated by:

A safety factor below 1 stated that the part is passing its yield stress and will deform or fracture
when the stress is applied. This therefore needs to be increased. A safety factor above 1 states
that the stress being applied can be handled by the material and can continue to be applied.
However, a safety factor too high (which can vary between projects) can show over engineering
and a possibility of wastage of material and performance. Therefore a safety factor must be
assigned per project. Within the HPV Crank project, a safety factor of 1-2 is acceptable as enough
material will be resent but performance will not be deficient.

Page 8
Optimisation
Objectives:
This project is to optimise the crank via material use, as well as performance, therefore the
following criteria will be critiqued in order of priority.

1. Thickness - The distance between the pedals when minimal can improve mechanical efficency
improving the HPVs performance.

2. Stiffness - The crank will be in constant use during the event, therefore the crank must not
deform significantly when under the load conditions. This will be defined via displacement
constraint.

3. Mass - The material must be lightweight as possible.

The results of the optimisation will be compared to the original crank from the given criteria.

The optimisation will be completed in the following system:

1. Several designs will be made changing the structure of the crank, while still keeping the main
(needed) components.

2. The designs will be created in Autodesk Inventor and the minimum safety factor will be
considered (with all other physical component such as constraints and loads being the same).

3. Which ever design with the highest minimum safety factor will be used in the optimisation,
with further adjustments being added later in the optimisation.

The optimisation will be completed in a ranked system.

1. This means each design constraint (such as thickness) will be assessed individually to find its
top 3 optimised values.

2. These values will then be combined together to find the most improved and optimised model
for each angle.

3. Finally an optimised model will be produced which satisfies all criteria in all angles and states.

Starting Point
To get an initial result to start from, several designs were created on paper. The original perimeter
was kept as a baseline but may be changed if needed further in the analysis. The 10 designs can be
seen in appendix _.

Page 9
The Analysis
Due to the project brief stating to find a design which satisfies stress being exerted at 0, 45 and
90 from the horizontal, doing 3 different simulations with several parametric iterations will be
time consuming and power intensive which can slow the process and not provide useful results.
Therefore through the initial simulations, the 45 analysis will be conducted as it provided the
highest Von Mises Stress, high displacement and lowest safety factor.

Once one or more criteria has been satisfied, the design/change will be documented.
Design Iteration 1
Figure 18 - Design Iteration 1 -
Von Mises Stress

The first design resulted in a high Von Mises Stress however this stress was concentrated at most
tight curves of the wave design. This gave the impression that small and tight curves in the design
give a higher stress value and should be avoided. This was introduced as a design constraint to
avoid high stresses in future iterations.

Displacement, mass, safety factor results as well as convergence graph for the wave design
(Design 1) can be found in appendix E_.

Design Iteration 2
The second design introduced longer curves. As corners increased stress upon a part, circles were
deemed effective as well as fillets and chamfers. Combining long curves and circles, an oval was
used in the design.
Figure 19 - Design Iteration 2 -
Von Mises Stress

Page 10
The second design resulted in a high Von Mises Stress however this stress was concentrated now
concentrated in the bolt hole. Now that the stress has changed, this area must now be treated in
stress reduction. As well as this, a hole located nearer to the pedal hole, reduces stress laid upon
the pedal hole.

Displacment, mass, safety factor results as well as convergence graph can be found in appendix _.

Design Iteration 3
The third design introduced material reduction. This was in a form of a polygon with long curves
which went around the bolt holes. Due to the empty space next to the bolt hole, less stress will be
applied to the bolt.
The shape was not mathematically defined, but designed to take as much material away while still
reducing stress upon the area. This was mirrored across the part as symmetry showed importance
with the oval and circular cut outs.
Figure 20 - Design Iteration 3 -
Von Mises Stress

The third design resulted in a high Von Mises Stress however this stress was located near the
centre of the part. As shown, less stress is being applied to the bolt hole and the pedal hole. This
design is showing progress, with small changes should provide meaningful results.

Displacement, mass, safety factor results as well as convergence graph can be found in appendix F.

Page 11
Design Iteration 4
The fourth design introduced fillets. As stated before, corners increase stresses in the part, to
which it is applicable to fillet corners to reduce stress and receive better results.
Figure 21 - Design Iteration 4 -
Von Mises Stress

The fourth design resulted in a reduction of stress which subside into the required results. Stress
was below 275 MPa, Safety Factor equalled 1.05 and the mass was 9.57g lighter. However, the
displacement was higher than the original result.

Figure 22 - Design Iteration 4 -

Displacment

As shown in figure _, the displacement has increased to 2.35mm. This is an increase of 9.8% from
the original results. As 3/4 criteria have been fulfilled, this design iterations can be accepted to
test at other angles of force prior to thickness reduction. However, the brief given from the client
states (page 9) that stiffness (displacement) has a higher priority than mass. Due to this, a more
accepted design will be found by the iteration process. Displacement, mass, safety factor results
as well as convergence graph can be found in appendix G.

Page 12
Design Iteration 5
The fifth design introduced more mass. As the displacement was higher in the previous iteration,
this means the stiffness is low. To increase stiffness, more material must be present. Therefore
the crank area has been scaled (while crank shaft hole, bolt holes and pedal hole dimensions stay
the same) by approximately 17%. As well as this, the cut outs have been extruded only one third of
the thickness of the part. This adds more mass and material to the part.

Figure 23 - Design Iteration 5 -

Von Mises Stress at 12mm Th.

The fifth design resulted in an increase of stress. Stress was 100MPa above the yield strength.
This was unusual as an increase of mass should provide lower stress values. However when
changing the thickness via the parametric table (at 10, 10.5, 11, 11.5 and 12 mm thickness), the
stress distributed around the part also reducing the stress to below 275 MPa, Safety Factor
equalled 1.05 and the displacement reduced by 0.51mm. However, as predicted the mass has been
increased by 61g. This is substantially higher at 110% of the original mass. The other thickness
results can be found in appendix _

Figure 24 - Design Iteration 5 -

Von Mises Stress at 11.5mm Th.

The fifth design resulted in a reduction of stress which subside into the required results. Stress
was 252 MPa, Safety Factor equalled 1.077 and the displacement reduced by 0.638mm. However,
as predicted the mass has been increased by 79.5g. This is substantially higher at 133% of the
original mass. Displacement, mass, safety factor results as well as convergence graph can be
found in appendix HJ.
Page 13
Narrowing down the thickness from 0.5mm intervals to 0.1mm intervals, further analysis was
conducted with thickness being tested at 11mm to 11.5mm.
Figure 25 - Design Iteration 5 -
Von Mises Stress at 11.4mm Th.

The higher precision of thickness shows that 11.4mm thickness gives the best values for stress,
displacement and safety factor. Stress was 252MPa, Safety Factor equalled 1.088 and the
displacement reduced by 0.516mm. However the mass albeit still over the original value is now
only increased by 76.7g. This is substantially higher at 131% of the original mass. The other
thickness results can be found in appendix _

As figure _ shows design iteration 4 having a higher displacement of 2.35mm while figure _ shows
design iteration 5 having a higher mass of 0.322 Kg, both design iteration 4 and 5 should have their
0 and 90 forces tested to provide a more evidence of the effective design.

Design Iteration 4 and 5 at 0 and 90

Figure _ and _ show the stress acting upon the part when a 2000N force has been exerted at 0
from the horizontal.

Figure 26 - Design Iteration 4 -

Von Mises Stress at 0

Page 14
 Figure 26 - Design Iteration 5 -
Von Mises Stress at 0

Figure _ shows design iteration 4 has a higher stress of 286 MPa at 0 as well as a safety factor
of 0.960 while Figure _ shows design iteration 5 stress decreases to 235 MPa and safety factor of
1.162, still subsiding within the original results.

Furthermore figure _ and _ show the 90 analysis upon design iteration 4 and 5.

Figure 27 - Design Iteration 4 -

Von Mises Stress at 90

Figure 28x - Design Iteration 5 -

Von Mises Stress at 90

Page 15
Figure _ shows design iteration 4 has a lower stress of 252 MPa at 90 as well as a safety factor
of 1.09 and Figure _ shows design iteration 5 stress also decreasing to 248 MPa and safety factor
of 1.11, still subsiding within the original results. Even though both cranks are within the values,
due to the failure of design iteration 4, within the 0 analysis, design iteration 5 will be continued
on as the final design. Drawing specification, displacement, mass, safety factor results as well as
convergence graph can be found in appendix _ for both design iteration 4 and 5.

Results and Conclusion

The comparative results of the optimised crank and the original design can be seen in table 5.

Percentage Difference
Criteria Original Design Optimised Design
(Decrease) %
Mass (Kg) 0.245 0.322 (31.2)
Thickness (mm) 12 11.4 5.00
0 Analysis
Von Mises Stress
298 236 20.8
(MPa)
Displacement (mm) 2.87 2.20 23.3
Safety Factor 0.921 1.16 26.0
45 Analysis
Von Mises Stress
362 253 16.5
(MPa)
Displacement (mm) 2.14 1.62 24.3
Safety Factor 0.843 1.09 29.3
90 Analysis
Von Mises Stress
297 248 16.5
(MPa)
Displacement (mm) 0.499 0.394 21.0
Safety Factor 0.927 1.11 19.7
Table 5 - Comparive Results
Overall the part shows an improvement in performance and efficency with the exclusion of the
mass, As stated in the objectives, the priority of accomplishments starts with thickness then
stiffness (displacement) lastly following mass. As design iteration 4 and 5 was competitive
between displacement or mass, displacement received the priority therefore design iteration 5
seemed the better practical design.

Page 16
Possible Sources of Error

Even though the results have shown a majority positive reaction in the change of the design, the
results can obtain sources of error. This can include:

Mesh Settings - The mesh created on the application may not be 100% accurate to the real life
part. Simulations struggle to imitate particle based parts and creating a 3d tetrahedral mesh at
a 1mm local mesh can be accurate but not precise.

Material Database - The application (Autodesk Inventor 2018) contains material databases
which have data relating to materials such as Von Mises Stress and poissons ratio. How
accurate this data is to real life parts can be difficult to calculate. Due to this, these values are
used to imitate the parts in use.

Load application - The chosen value of 2000N was used within the optimisation. The reliability
of this value is low as it is only been given by the client, which they have not specified where
the value has come from. This load can be calculated by testing the pressure applied to pedals
in controlled settings to provide accurate results. If the actual stress is less than 2000N, then
safety values may increase, which provides a safer crank. A further optimisation can also be
done as the stress distributed may be different can the new optimised design can be further
improved.
If the actual stress is more than 2000N, the part optimisation must be repeated as the safety
factor can decrease into permanent deformation.

Page 17
Appendicies
Von Mises Stress at 0 to the horizontal Appendix A-1

The stress is mainly located near the point of pressure around 179 Mpa, while the maximum stress
is on the perpendicular plane on the 3rd hole. This can be reduced with a change of design.
Displacement at 0 to the horizontal
Appendix A-2

A displacement of 2.8mm is very high however located behind the point of force applied. The
1.7mm displacement in front shows a high deformation which can cause problems when in use.
Safety Factor at 0 to the horizontal
Appendix A-3

The minimum safety factor on 0.92 shows that the crank is passing its maximum yield strength
which will cause deformation in the part, even with the majority of the part being around a safety
factor of 3, deformation on one part of the crank can cause problems when being used.

Page 18
 Appendix A-4 Appendix A-5

Convergance Graph - Convergance Graph -

Von Mises Stress, 0, Displacment, 0,
Origional Design Origional Design

Von Mises Stress at 45 to the horizontal

Appendix B-1

Compared to the 0 analysis, the maximum stress, again located perpendicular on the holes,
however increased to 326MPa. With optimisation, this can be reduced.
Displacement at 45 to the horizontal
Appendix B-2

A displacement of 2.14mm is very high like the 0 analysis. This is also located behind the point of
force applied. The 1.3mm displacement in front shows an improvement, but this still will need to
be reduced.

Page 19
Safety Factor at 45 to the horizontal Appendix B-3

The minimum safety factor on 0.84 shows that the crank is passing its maximum yield strength
which will cause deformation in the part, this is lower than the 0 analysis so improvement is
needed.

Appendix B-4 Appendix B-5

Convergance Graph - Convergance Graph -

Von Mises Stress, 45, Displacment, 45,
Origional Design Origional Design

Von Mises Stress at 90 to the horizontal

Appendix C-1

In comparison to the 0 and 45 stresses, the stress here is between the two stresses rated at
297MPa. This is still high however can be improved through optimisation.

Page 20
Displacement at 90 to the horizontal
Appendix C-2

The displacement in the 90 analysis is 0.499 mm. This is reasonable so changes with this
constraint is not a high priority, however an improvement will not be declined.
Safety Factor at 90 to the horizontal
Appendix C-3

The minimum safety factor on 0.93 shows that the crank is passing its maximum yield strength
which will cause deformation in the part.

Appendix C-4 Appendix C-5

Convergance Graph - Convergance Graph -

Von Mises Stress, 90, Displacment, 90,
Origional Design Origional Design

Page 21
 Safety Factor - Mild Steel Appendix D-1

Safety Factor - Aluminium 6061 Appendix D-2

Safety Factor - Carbon Fibre Reninforced Polymer (GFRP) Appendix D-3

Page 22
Design Iteration 1 - Displacment - 45 Appendix E-1

Design Iteration 1 - Safety Factor - 45 Appendix E-2

Appendix E-3 Appendix E-4

Convergance Graph - Convergance Graph -

Von Mises Stress, 45, Displacment, 45,
Origional Design Origional Design

Mass = 0.250251 Kg Appendix E-5

Page 23
 Design Iteration 2 - Displacment - 45 Appendix F-1

Design Iteration 2 - Safety Factor - 45 Appendix F-2

Appendix F-4 Appendix F-5

Convergance Graph - Convergance Graph -

Von Mises Stress, 45, Displacment, 45,
Origional Design Origional Design

Mass = 0.226506 Kg Appendix F-6

Page 24