This document summarizes the finite element analysis of a bicycle frame under static loading conditions. It describes the bike geometry, material properties, measurements, Abaqus modeling approach, boundary conditions, and results from two loading cases. The first case models a 200 lb rider sitting on the bike, applying 127.18 lbf to the seat and 64.56 lbf distributed to the handlebars. The second case models a 200 lb rider standing and leaning over the handlebars, applying a 50/50 load of 50 lbf to the handlebars and 100 lbf to the pedals. Meshes were refined and stresses analyzed to perform a convergence study for each loading case.

1. Applied Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element
Analysis of a
Bicycle Frame
Under Static
Loading Conditions
Benjamin Fordyce
Dominic Rubalcaba
Matthew Savageau
12-5-2016

2. 1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Procedure .........................................................................................................................................2
The Bike ........................................................................................................................................2
Material .........................................................................................................................................2
Measurements ................................................................................................................................3
Abaqus Modeling ...........................................................................................................................6
Partitioning.....................................................................................................................................7
Element Normals ............................................................................................................................8
Boundary Conditions ......................................................................................................................9
Essential Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................................9
Natural Boundary Conditions, Case 1...............................................................................................9
Natural Boundary Conditions, Case 2.............................................................................................10
Mesh Controls, Seeding, and Corresponding Meshes.......................................................................12
Results............................................................................................................................................16
Case 1 Results ..............................................................................................................................16
Case 2 Results ..............................................................................................................................23
Convergence Study.........................................................................................................................30
Case 1 Convergence Study ............................................................................................................31
Case 2 Convergence Study ............................................................................................................32
Convergence Plots ........................................................................................................................33
Overall Results and Estimated Error...............................................................................................36
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................37
References.......................................................................................................................................38
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................39
Appendix A: Bike Partitions at Different Locations.........................................................................39
Appendix B: Load Case 2 Places of Maximum Von Mises Stress, Mesh 6........................................40

3. 2 | P a g e
Procedure
The Bike
A cheap, 5 speed Walmart trail bike, rated at 250 lbf max was used [1]. The length, outer
diameter, and wall thickness of each tube was measured using a tape measure and micrometer.
All measurements were taken in inches. The length was measured from outside diameter to
outside diameter of the end tubes it was welded to. In addition, a hole was drilled into each tube
in order to measure the wall thickness. A round file was to cut off any burs inside and outside
the frame left from the drilling process. This was done to get accurate wall thickness
measurements when creating the model. A cotter pin with a 90 degree hook on the end was
inserted in the holes and pulled back so that the 90 degree hook pulled against the inside wall of
the beam. A marker was used to mark the cotter pin where it was flush with the outside of the
wall. This method was used so that the bike frame did not need to be chopped up.
Material
The seat post and front fork are made of 4130 steel as this is the most common steel for bicycles.
The rest of the bike is made from 6061 [1]. A magnet was used to determine which components
were steel or aluminum as a magnet will not attract to aluminum.
4130 steel has a Young’s Modulus of 29,700,000 psi and a Poisson’s Ratio of 0.29[2]. 6061
Aluminum has a Young’s Modulus of 10,000,000 psi and a Poisson’s Ratio of 0.33[3].
Figure 1: Bike Frame Material Distribution

4. 3 | P a g e
Measurements
The measurements of all the components are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3.
● L- length
● OD- outer diameter
● T- wall thickness
● D- diameter for solid components
● W- width for spans between forks
Figure 2: Bike XY-Plane Dimensions

5. 4 | P a g e
Figure 3: Bike ZY-Plane Dimensions

6. 5 | P a g e
Figure 4: Bike YZ-Plane Dimensions

7. 6 | P a g e
Abaqus Modeling
The bike geometry was made using shell elements on all parts of the bike frame. The fork hooks
were modeling as solid elements. Although the handlebar neck parts are solid rods, they were
modeling as shell elements. This is because when attempting to trim the model at the connection
points related to the handlebars and the neck, Abaqus would change the neck into shell elements.
Figure 5 show the completed bike geometry. The bike model is very similar to that of the actual
bike. Some of the angles for part, like the top frame tube and the handlebar neck, are
approximately close to those of the actual bike but were modified to match the bike dimensions
input in Abaqus. Lofting and sweep features were commonly used in order to get the bike
geometry as close to the actual geometry as possible.
Figure 5: Bike Model Geometry

8. 7 | P a g e
Partitioning
All components were made so that the entire frame could be analyzed using structured, free,
and/or sweep meshes. Figure 6 below shows the bike partitions. Tubes with bends, welding
joints, and fork hooks received more partitions than straight tubes in order to make meshing
easier to do. Other partition figures can be seen in Appendix A.
Figure 6: Partitioned Bike, Full View

9. 8 | P a g e
Element Normals
After assigning material properties to the bike frame, the element normal needed to be checked
and/or changed. Figure 7 below shows the element normal assignments for the bike. Brown
indicates the exterior surface and purple indicates the interior surface. Because the fork hooks
are solid elements, element normal did not apply.
Figure 7: Bike Element Normals

10. 9 | P a g e
Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions are based on two different load cases. Both load cases use the same
essential boundary conditions.
Essential Boundary Conditions
The essential boundary conditions include:
● a fixed displacement condition in the y-direction on both of the wheel anchors because it
was assumed that the rider was simply translating with no oscillation due to tire elasticity.
● a fixed displacement condition in the z-direction on both of the wheel anchors under the
assumption that the tire is rigidly mounted and the nuts holding them do not slip.
● a fixed displacement condition in the x-direction on only the rear wheel anchor in order
to measure how much the bike elongates in the x-direction under loading and to prevent
rigid body translation of the model.
Natural Boundary Conditions, Case 1
The first load case was a 200 lbf person riding the bike. The person is coasting on the bike and
not applying any weight to the pedals. Most of the weight that the rider induces is felt on the
seat, with some of the weight felt by the handlebars when the rider grips them with their hands.
It was determined that 63.59% of the rider’s weight is concentrated on the seat and 32.28% of
the weight was concentrated on the handlebars. Data was gathered using a common home scale.
The rider sat on the bike. The front and rear wheels were separately set on the scale and both
weights were recorded. The front wheel weight was used for the ratio assigned to the handlebars
and the rear wheel weight was used for the ratio assigned to the seat. Table 1 below shows the
data used to determine the weight distribution on the bike.
Table 1: Bike Weight Data
Weight (lbf) % Bike of Weight % Error
Bike and Rider 206 n/a n/a
Back Wheel 131 63.59 n/a
Front Wheel 66.5 32.28 n/a
Front and Back Wheel 197.5 95.87 4.13
This results in a 127.18 lbf load applied vertically to the seat post and 64.56 lbf load applied
vertically and evenly distributed to both handlebar ends.
The surface area used for each handlebar is 2.38 in ^2 and equates to 13.57 psi per hand. This is
¼ of the grip surface. The top surface area used for the seat post is 1.01 in^2 and equates to
125.70 psi. Surface traction is used on the handlebars and seat to create a directional pressure in
the vertically.

11. 10 | P a g e
Natural Boundary Conditions, Case 2
A 200-lbf rider is standing, leaning over the handlebars, while coasting, causing a 50/50 weight
distribution between the handlebars and the pedals. The hand force, (50 lbf), is spread over the
top half of the handle surface, (4.86 in^2), creating 5.14 psi per hand. The pedal force, (100 lbf),
is distributed over the bottom quarter of the bearing housing, (3.42 in^2), creating a 29.21 psi
pressure. This pressure is applied normal to inside face of the housing as bearings can only
transmit normal forces under zero friction assumption.
Figures 8 and 9 below show the boundary conditions for load case 1 and load case 2. The
different natural boundary conditions should produce different analysis responses in the bike.
Figure 8: Applied Natural and Essential Boundary Conditions for Case 1

12. 11 | P a g e
Figure 9: Applied Natural and Essential Boundary Conditions for Case 2

13. 12 | P a g e
Mesh Controls, Seeding, and Corresponding Meshes
Most of the bike was analyzed using structured mesh controls and quad elements. The fork
hooks used sweep mesh controls and quad elements. Structured was not an option for the fork
hooks with the partitions that we used. Ultimately, the structured meshing if forced on the
hooks, had many more elements with problem areas that did not allow complete meshing of the
frame. Using sweep mesh controls solved that problem.
The element type was set to standard, linear with 3D stress, and reduced integration in order to
save computational time. Figure 10 below shows the bike with mesh controls.
Figure 10: Bike with Mesh Controls (Green=Structured, Yellow=Sweep)
Six different meshes were created for the convergence study. Global seeding was used to create
the meshes in order to save time from constructing custom edge seeds on every element of the
bike. Custom seeding would have allowed more control but would have vastly increased the
time it took to perform the convergence study as each custom seed would have needed to be
decreased in size separately for each mesh size. Also, global seeding helped make sure all the
elements have roughly the same size.
Table 2 below shows the global seed size control and the number of nodes and elements for each
mesh. For all meshes, curvature control is 0.1. From the table, the number of nodes and
elements increase with decreasing global seed size. Notice the number of nodes and elements
are slightly more than double with each mesh. This was intentional for the convergence study as
having at least double the nodes creates a more linear or valid error drop.

14. 13 | P a g e
Table 2: Mesh Seeding Method Setup and Output
Global Seed Size # of Nodes # of Elements
Mesh 1 1 3,922 3,643
Mesh 2 0.38 8,343 8,039
Mesh 3 0.22 18,046 17,610
Mesh 4 0.13 44,946 44,027
Mesh 5 0.09 92,660 90,782
Mesh 6 0.06 205,630 201,843
Figures 11 through 22 show the mesh seeds and corresponding mesh for each mesh created.
The smaller global seed size produces a much finer mesh that is closer to the bike’s actual
geometry.
Figure 11: Seeds Mesh 1 Figure 12: Mesh 1
Figure 13: Seeds Mesh 2 Figure 14: Mesh 2

15. 14 | P a g e
Figure 15: Seeds Mesh 3 Figure 16: Mesh 3
Figure 17: Seeds Mesh 4 Figure 18: Mesh 4
Figure 19: Seeds Mesh 5 Figure 20: Mesh 5

16. 15 | P a g e
Figure 21: Seeds Mesh 6 Figure 22: Mesh 6
During meshing, some discrepancies in the geometry were noticed in the courser meshes.
These led to poor approximations of the displacements and stresses. Pictured below are
some of the poorly meshed elements depicted in Mesh 1 and Mesh 5. (Figures 23-26).
Figure 23: Mesh 1 Poor Meshing at Hooks Figure 24: Mesh 5: Better Meshing of Hooks
Figure 25: Mesh 1 Poor Meshing at Joint Figure 26: Mesh 5 Better Representation at Joint

17. 16 | P a g e
Results
The results for each loading case include the maximum Von Mises stress and displacement
magnitude experienced in the bike. These values give a good idea of what the stress and
displacements will be in the bike. In addition, the values of maximum displacement and Von
Mises stress are only approximations produced by the Abaqus solver. In order to validate the
values, lab testing would need to be performed for both loading cases and the values from
Abaqus would be compared to the lab results.
Case 1 Results
Table 3 below shows the results for each mesh for loading case 1. The maximum Von Mises
stress is on the order of 10^4 psi and the maximum displacement magnitude is on the order of
10^-2. In addition, the displacements for all 6 meshes are smaller than 1/32 of an inch, which is
nearly impossible to see with the human eye.
Table 3: Results for Loading Case 1
# of Nodes # of Elements Max. Von Mises Stress (psi)(1) Max. Displacement Magnitude (in)(2)
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 12,311.9 0.0301076
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 14,143.6 0.0318004
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 14,965.2 0.0299783
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 15,425.6 0.0292339
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 15,517.7 0.0290489
Mesh 6 205,630 201,843 15,571.4 0.0291088
(1)Obtained from written report at integration points on elements
(2)Obtained from written report at nodes
Figures 27 to 38 show the deformed and undeformed states superimposed on the Von Mises
stress and displacement magnitude contours for Case 1. In meshes 1-5, the location of maximum
Von Mises stress is located on the seat post tube. Mesh 6 shows the location in the left front
fork. The location of maximum displacement magnitude is on the right handlebar for meshes 1-
3. Meshes 4-6 show it on the right front fork.

18. 17 | P a g e
Figure 27: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 1
Figure 28: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 1

19. 18 | P a g e
Figure 29: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 2
Figure 30: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 2

20. 19 | P a g e
Figure 31: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 3
Figure 32: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 3

21. 20 | P a g e
Figure 33: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 4
Figure 34: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 4

22. 21 | P a g e
Figure 35: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 5
Figure 36: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 5

23. 22 | P a g e
Figure 37: Load Case 1 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 6
Figure 38: Load Case 1 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 6

24. 23 | P a g e
Case 2 Results
The results for loading case to for all 6 meshes can be seen below in Table 4. The order of
magnitude for the maximum Von Mises stress and displacement magnitude are the same as in
Case 1. However, in Table 4, the displacements are between 1/16 and 1/32 of an inch and be
hard to see at a glance.
Table 4: Results for Loading Case 2
# of Nodes # of Elements Max. Von Mises Stress (psi)(1) Max. Displacement Magnitude (in)(2)
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 10,637.8 0.0469251
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 11,509.4 0.0493519
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 13,834.4 0.0458572
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 16,982.9 0.045193
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 19,285.1 0.0449064
Mesh 6 205,630 201,843 20,195.0 0.0450164
(1)Obtained from written report at integration points on elements
(2)Obtained from written report at nodes
The Von Mises stress and displacement magnitude contours for all 6 meshes can be seen below
in Figures 39 through 50. Between the meshes, the maximum Von Mises stress location jumps
between both front forks and the handlebars but the maximum displacement magnitude location
stays on the right handlebar.

25. 24 | P a g e
Figure 39: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 1
Figure 40: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 1

26. 25 | P a g e
Figure 41: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 2
Figure 42: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 2

27. 26 | P a g e
Figure 43: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 3
Figure 44: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 3

28. 27 | P a g e
Figure 45: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 4
Figure 46: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 4

29. 28 | P a g e
Figure 47: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 5
Figure 48: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 5

30. 29 | P a g e
Figure 49: Load Case 2 Von Mises Stress Contours, Mesh 6
Figure 50: Load Case 2 Displacement Magnitude Contours, Mesh 6

31. 30 | P a g e
Figure 51, (below), shows the stress concentration for loading case 2 which is located on the
corner of the front forks and is likely the cause of it being the location of a maximum stress.
Better meshing and a smoother transition in the geometry would help determine if this will be
place of interest in the bike.
Figure 51: Load Case 2, Mesh 6, Maximum Stress located at Stress Concentrator
The stress concentration on these front forks are the same concentrations that caused issues in
Mesh 6 of Case 1 and were locations of maximum stresses in Case 2. Other partial portions of
the frame under loading can be found in Appendix B but were not used in the Convergence
Study.
Convergence Study
There were issues when carrying out the convergence study due to locations of maximum Von
Mises stress and displacement magnitude changing as the mesh size increased. This could be
due to some of the elements in the mesh having odd/non-quadratic shapes. After some careful
consideration of the field output reports for Von Mises stresses, it was found that the jumping
occurred from use of a limited display that only showed the top elements of the frame. After
changing the section points display to show the maximum location in both the top and bottom
elements, the jumping was greatly limited and is depicted in the figures above and in Appendix

32. 31 | P a g e
B. There was still some jumping that occurred at the stress concentrations located at the corners
on the front forks of the frame. During Case 2, this concentration led to an inability to converge
the results in less than 250,000 nodes. Without the use of more nodes it is not possible to tell if
the solution will converge or not. The results for both cases are discussed below.
Equations 1 and 2 below show the formulas used to perform the convergence study on both
loading cases.
% 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = |
𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑂𝑙𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
| × 100 (Equation 1)
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = % 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 (Equation 2)
Case 1 Convergence Study
When looking at the maximum displacement for Case 1, the results above show that the
maximum displacement magnitude is consistently located on the right handlebar until Mesh 4 at
which the location of the maximum moved down to the front forks and remained there through
Mesh 6. This is likely caused by poor meshing from the earliest meshes. As they became more
refined, Abacus was able to find that the location for the maximum displacement magnitude was
actually in the forks. The reason for the rapid change of location was likely caused by the slight
changes in geometry that were similar in the early meshes but differed more as the mesh became
more refined. In order to test convergence, we utilized Node 274, which was not a location for
the Maximum Displacement. However, it was consistently one of the top few nodes in the all of
the meshes and did not differ across the meshes during renumbering of the Nodes. The results
for this Convergence Study are pictured below in Table 5.
Table 5: Case 1 Convergence Study Results, Maximum Displacement Magnitude
# of Nodes # of Elements
Max.Displacement
Magnitude (in)(2)
% Change in Max.
Displacement Magnitude
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 0.0301076 ---
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 0.0318004 5.32
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 0.0299783 6.08
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 0.0292339 2.55
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 0.0290489 0.64
Mesh 6 20,5630 20,1843 0.0291088 0.21
(2)Obtained from written report at nodes (Node 274)
For Mesh 1-5 the Maximum Stress was consistently located, at Node 373, at the base of the seat.
This was not the case for Mesh 6. Convergence of the maximum stress consistently decreased
from 14.88% to 0.6% in Meshes 1-5. In Mesh 6 the stress concentration, located at the front
forks, took over and resulted in a jump to 50% error. After careful consideration of the Field
Output Request for Von Mises Stresses in Case 1, it was found that the consistent Node 373,

33. 32 | P a g e
location of maximum stress in the other meshes, was only 8 places below the maximum stress
found in Mesh 6. The other 7 stresses found by Abaqus above this node were all located on or
around the stress concentration on the front forks and were considered to be outliers in the data.
After removing them from the study and proceeding with the convergence study, using the stress
at Node 373, the error dropped to 0.35% and is depicted in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Case 1 Convergence Study Results, Maximum Von Mises Stress
# of Nodes # of Elements
Max. Von Mises
Stress (psi)(1)
% Change in Max.
Von Mises Stress
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 12,311.9 ---
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 14,143.6 12.95
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 14,965.2 5.49
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 15,425.6 2.98
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 15,517.7 0.59
Mesh 6 20,5630 20,1843 15,571.4 0.34
(1)Obtained from written report at integration points on elements (Node 373)
Case 2 Convergence Study
During this loading case, the maximum displacement was consistently found in the handlebars
for all meshes. The displacements converged quickly and the results are posted below in Table
7.
Table 7: Case 2 Convergence Study Results, Maximum Displacement Magnitude
# of Nodes # of Elements
Max.Displacement
Magnitude (in)(2)
% Change in Max.
Displacement Magnitude
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 0.0469251 ---
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 0.0493519 4.92
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 0.0458572 7.62
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 0.045193 1.47
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 0.0449064 0.64
Mesh 6 20,5630 20,1843 0.0450164 0.24
(2)Obtained from written report at nodes
During Case 2, the load was distributed towards the front of the bike so it is no surprise to find
the maximum stresses located on the front forks. During the convergence test, there was an issue

34. 33 | P a g e
resulting from the maximum load altering between the front-left, front-right forks, and the
handlebars. Subsequently, the percent error was jumping around due to the inconsistencies of
the location of the maximum stress. When the elements at the fork were removed, the maximum
stress stayed in the handlebars and the results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Case 2 Convergence Study Results, Maximum Von Mises Stress
# of Nodes # of Elements
Max. Von Mises
Stress (psi)(1)
% Change in Max.
Von Mises Stress
Mesh 1 3,922 3,643 10,637.8 ---
Mesh 2 8,343 8,039 11,509.4 7.57
Mesh 3 18,046 17,610 13,834.4 16.81
Mesh 4 44,946 44,027 16,982.9 18.54
Mesh 5 92,660 90,782 19,285.1 11.94
Mesh 6 20,5630 20,1843 20,195.0 4.51
(1)Obtained from written report at integration points on elements
Convergence Plots
Figures 52 through 54 show the convergence study plots for both model loading cases. Both
loading cases have a similar curve shape. The value of maximum displacement magnitude
seems to level off when there are 50,000 nodes.

35. 34 | P a g e
Figure 52: Maximum Displacement Magnitude Convergence Plot
In Figure 53, the maximum Von Mises stress for loading case 1 seems to level off around
50,000 nodes, whereas the maximum Von Mises stress for loading case 2 to continues to rise.

36. 35 | P a g e
Figure 53: Maximum Von Mises Stress Convergence Plot

37. 36 | P a g e
In Figure 54, it seems that the values of Von Mises stress for loading case 1 and displacement
magnitude for both loading cases start to converge around 100,000 nodes.
Figure 54: Percent Change in Maximum Displacement Magnitude and Von Mises Stress
Convergence Plot
Overall Results and Estimated Error
The overall Abaqus results for both loading cases can be seen in Table 9 below. From the table,
both loading cases seem to produce similar Von Mises stress and displacement magnitude
responses.
Table 9: Overall Bike Results
Loading
Case
Max. Von Mises
Stress (psi)(1)
% Error in Max.
Von Mises Stress
Max. Displacement
Magnitude (in)(2)
% Error in Max.
Displacement Magnitude
1 12,311.9 0.34 0.0449064 0.21
2 20,195.0 4.51 0.0450164 0.24
(1)Obtained from written report at integration points on elements
(2)Obtained from written report at nodes

38. 37 | P a g e
Conclusion
For both loading cases, the bike will not yield or fail. This is accurate, as a bike should and does
not fail when a person rides it. This bike is rated for a 250 lbf person so a 200 lbf load should
not fail. The bike does a decent job in taking on stress in the frame. Since most of a person's
weight is on the seat, pedals, and/or handlebars, the main frame components will experience low
amounts of stress compared to the seat and handlebars. If bike components were to yield or fail,
it would most likely occur in the seat or handlebars. This corresponds to personal experience
braking bikes where failure is, in fact, experienced most often at the seat or handlebars.
There wasn’t enough time to produce more load cases but it is estimated that a drop load of a 200
lbf person from 1 foot could cause the bike frame to yield in multiple areas. This drop with only
a 3 in take up of the person’s legs results in a multiplied force of 800 lbf.
If more time was allotted for modeling and had double layers of metal over each other, such as in
the fork suspension, steering housing, and seat connection areas, the stress might have
propagated out of those areas to other areas in the bike as shown in the figures in Appendix B.
Completing the model and analysis was challenging. Creating the tubes and other parts were
relatively simple. What made it challenging was assigning the mesh controls to each piece.
Some pieces were built based on a previous part’s geometry. For other parts, though, they were
built on datum planes that were not directly connected to other components. Because of this, the
newer datums may not have aligned perfectly with olde reference points/datums, therefore
causing issues with mesh controls.
For the model, there were a lot of poorly-shaped elements once the mesh was made. This is
mainly because of using global seeding. The project showed how difficult and time-consuming
it is to generate nice part geometries that also produce nice meshes. In addition, the quality of
the mesh determines how valid or accurate the final results are. When performing the
convergence study, poor elements, that were identified, had to be taken out if Abaqus displayed
that element as the one with maximum stress or displacement. With sharp points in the mesh,
the stress in that element would never converge. The convergence study for Case 2 was an
excellent representation of how a mesh can converge in displacements but not in stresses.
The project provided a great opportunity to fully model a situation that is experienced in reality.
If there was more time, the group would have rebuilt the bike from the ground up, with the newly
gained knowledge of this particular model in order to create less error, have a more uniform
geometry and simpler geometry in the areas of non-cubical meshing, and better partitioning to
allow even better seeding. In addition, custom seeding would be used in the problem areas of the
bike geometry.

39. 38 | P a g e
References
[1] “26” Glendale Men’s Bike.” walmart.com. Accessed November 10, 2016.
<https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Glendale-Men-s-Bike/34116309>
[2] “AISI 4130 Steel, normalized at 870°C (1600°F).” matweb.com. Accessed November 15,
2016. <http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=m4130r>
[3] “Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651.” matweb.com. Accessed November 15, 2016.
<http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061t6>

40. 39 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix A: Bike Partitions at Different Locations
Figure A1: Bike Partition, Back Fork Figure A2: Bike Partition, Front Fork
Figure A3: Bike Partition, Head Tube Figure A4: Bike Partition, Seat Tube
Figure A5: Bike Partition, Handlebars

41. 40 | P a g e
Appendix B: Load Case 2 Places of Maximum Von Mises Stress, Mesh 6
Figure B1: Log Scale Load 2 Stresses Figure B2: 1st Highest Stress Area
Figure B3: 2nd Highest Stress Area Figure B4: 3rd Highest Stress Area
Figure B5: 4th Highest Stress Area Figure B6: 5th Highest Stress Area

42. 41 | P a g e
Figure B7: 6th Highest Stress Area Figure B8: 7th Highest Stress Area
Figure B9: 8th Highest Stress Area