Redesign of Scott Bicycle

Frame

MIE 313 – Fall 1999

Project Baseline Analysis Report
Mechanical Component Analysis

November 16, 1999

Tara Shoman - Leader

Timothy Choiniere
Steven St. Laurent
1. Introduction

To gain knowledge into Mechanical Component design, a failed Scott Bicycle

frame was analyzed. The frame is made of Chromium Molybdenum Steel.

The purpose of the frame is to carry the weight of the rider and connect the other
components of the bicycle. The frame is the essential part of a bicycle.

The frame was damaged, as seen below, when the rider of the bicycle crashed
directly into a cement post.

Figure 1: Pictures of the frame that were taken after the crash

2. Objectives

The purpose of this report is to obtain the maximum stresses in the two-damaged
frame members using hand calculations and Finite Element Analysis (FEA).
The numbers obtained through the hand calculations are expected to correlate
with the numbers acquired through the FEA.
3. Procedure

The following steps were used to analyze the Scott Bicycle Frame

!"Formulation of the free body diagram

!"Determination of the forces
!"Hand Calculation of stresses
!"FEA analysis using Pro-Mechanica

4. Baseline Design and Analysis

!"Formulation of the Free Body Diagram

The part of the frame being analyzed is the front triangle as seen in Figure 1,
which supports all of the forces and took the brunt of the impact. Several
simplifying assumptions needed to be made in order to analyze this problem.

7.5”

5.00”

9.00”

Figure 2: Simplified frame section

In order to simplify the hand calculations and FEA, only the damaged section of
the frame was considered. Figure 2 shows the dimensions of the simplified
frame section and the original Pro-E solid model of that same section. In
general, there is error in modeling a dynamic system as a static one. However, a
static case is what was considered. This simplified frame is all that is needed for
a close approximation of the instantaneous impact forces.

In the collision of the bike with the cement post, the force of impact (FI) of the
cement post on the frame was huge with respect to all other forces (i.e. weight of
the rider). The following figure is a FBD of the simplified frame section.
 FB

FI
FA

Figure 3: Free Body Diagram (FBD)

!"Determination of the Forces

In actuality, this free body diagram is indeterminate because the top and lower
bar can each support a moment. However, it was decided to model the section
assuming no moments. This is justifiable because the lower bar was assumed to
fail under buckling. The top bar was assumed to fail in tension only because the
lower bar buckled.

At the instant the lower bar began to buckle, the axial force in the upper member
increased, tearing the bar precisely at the heat-treated portion of the weld (see
figure 1). This heat-treated region is weak, and it was unable to support the
applied stress during the collision.

Returning to the calculations: Once the force of impact is found, the reaction
forces in the two damaged members can be obtained using the following
equations:

∑F x = o (Eqn. 1)

− FA cos β − FB + FI

∑M A = 0 (Eqn. 2)

(FI )(1.75in ) + (FB )(4in )

Note that there are two equations but three unknowns. In order to estimate the
force of impact, the assumption that linear momentum was conserved during the
collision was made.

t2 v2

∫ Fdt = ∫ md v
t1 v1
 FI (t 2 − t1 ) = m(v2 − v1 )

Note that the assumption v2 = 0 was made because the bike came to a complete
stop.

FI ∆t collision = − mv1 (Eqn. 3)

In order to obtain FI, it is necessary to assume a ∆t collision .

d
v=
t
Assume: d = 1 ft
ft
Given: v = 45.5
s
1
Thus: t= = 0.022 s
45.5

Now substituting into Eqn. 3, calculate FI .

 lb ⋅ s 2   ft 
 7.5  ⋅  45.5 
ft   s
FI =  = 15,500lb ≈ 7.75 tons
0.022 s

Next, substitute into Eqns. 1 & 2 to obtain FA, FB.

F A = 250,000 lb

FB = −59,938 ≈ −60,000 lb

Note that the negative 60,000 lb indicates that the direction of FB is opposite
than what is pictured in figure 3.

!"Hand Calculations of Stresses

Now that the forces in each member have been determined, the stresses can be
obtained from the following formulas:

P
For the upper tube: σ max,axial = where P = FB
A
 A = Cross-sectional area = 0.9817 in2

Pcritical π 2E
For the lower tube: σ max,buckling = =
A (L / r )2
πEI
Pcritical =
L2

where E = Young’s Modulus of the material

lbf
E = 2.9 * 107 2
in

π (d o4 − d i4 )
I = = 0.1994 in4
64
L = the length of the rod = 9 in
ro = outer radius of the cross-section = .75 in
ri = inner radius of the cross-section = .5 in

σ max,axial , the maximum stress due to axial loading, is assumed the maximum
stress in the upper bar. σ max,buckling , the maximum stress due to buckling that the
lower tube can withstand, is assumed the maximum stress in the lower bar.
Pcritical is the critical load that, if surpassed, the member will buckle.
σ max,buckling and Pcritical were obtained from sections 5.12 in the class text, which
dealt with buckling.

From the above equations:

σ max,axial = 61,100 psi

σ max,buckling = 228,000 psi

Pcritical = 224,000 lb

These results confirm how the frame actually failed. FA exceeds Pcritical ,
therefore the lower tube buckles. Also σ max,axial exceeds the Sy of Chromium-
Molybdenum Steel, which is 33 ksi (ASTM, 1994).
!"FEA analysis Using Pro-Mechanica

For this specific project, it was not possible to compare the Pro-Mechanica stress
values with the hand calculations. The reason for this is the buckling analysis is
beyond the scope of this course for Pro-Mechanica.

The FEA results can be verified from comparing the maximum stress locations of
the Von Mises and Max. Principal stress contour plots to the actual frame. The
following two figures display these results.
Figure 4: Max. Principal Stress Results
Figure 5: Von Mises Stress Results
Note that the red areas on both contour plots coincide with the buckling region on
the actual frame.

5. Conclusions

The following table contains a summary of the hand calculations and FEA
analysis:

Table 1: Summary of Hand Calculations and FEA Analysis

HAND FEA
σmax,axial = 61,100 psi σMax. Principal = 5.4*105 psi
Pcritical = 224,000 lb σVon Mises = 1.78*106 psi

To sum up the table, the force in the lower member of the frame exceeds the
critical buckling force. Thus, the lower tube buckles. All of the stresses in the
above table exceed the yield strength of the frame material. Thus, the stress
values verify that the frame fails under the given conditions.

In an attempt to avoid the observed failure to the frame with the same force of
impact, new geometries will be considered. Other possibilities include changing
the material, adding suspension, and using double-butted tubing.

All the redesign options will be considered to determine the best possible
alternative accounting for safety, cost, manufacturing, ergonomics, and
aesthetics.
6. References

1. American Standards for Testing and Materials, Volume 01.04, Section 867a,
1994.

2. Juvinall, Robert Fundamentals of Machine Component Design

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd Edition, pg. 189-191 1991.