ANALYSIS

ASSIGNMENT

NAME : CHEN LE YONG

STUDENT ID : 2127665
SUMMARY
This report was divided into two parts, the first one is designing a wind chime bell with
prescribed note, while the second one was evaluating and redesigning a bicycle crank arm from
a basic design. Both parts were required to use simulation to obtain the final results. Finite
element analysis (FEA) had been

Wind chime was designed using the notes that were assigned to each person. Hand calculations
and design analysis were done in order to support the design produced. Materials were the
major concern as the dimensions were constrained by the suppliers. Length of tube could be
found when materials, dimensions and frequency of notes were known. Frequency simulation
was undergone in order to get the analysed frequency using finite element analysis.
Comparison was made between materials, frequency and cost in order to obtain the optimum
dimensions and materials. Aluminium tube with outer diameter of 0.0127m and inner diameter
of 0.0063m was the best design as the percentage difference is 0.553% compared to the
frequency of the notes. Moreover, the cost of aluminium was much cheaper compared to other
materials.

Bicycle crank arm was improved and optimised from a basic design using several simulations
such as static simulation, topology study and design study. The main objective was to minimise
the weight while maintain high working performance. Therefore, these simulations would help
reducing the mass but maintain the strength of the crank. Static simulation was used to look for
geometry stress and deformation while topology study and design study were used to reduce
the mass and optimise the designs. The best design had safety factor of 2.13 and lowest mass
of 48.528g. The percentage of mass reduction compared to the basic model given had increased
55.02%.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction

2. Wind Chime

a. Methodology

b. Calculation

c. Analysis

3. Bicycle Crank Arm

a. Methodology

b. Calculation

c. Analysis

4. Conclusion

5. Appendix
INTRODUCTION
There were two different parts needed to be designed, the first one was wind chime while the
other one was bicycle crank arm. The wind chime bell had to be designed using one prescribed
note. Besides, it must be able to be hung outside on a branch of tree. For the design of bicycle
crank arm, the main task was to evaluate and redesign the basic design provided in order to
produce a crank which could be used for mountain bike.

During designing wind chime bell, several factors needed to be taken into consideration were
materials, design of tube and frequency of note. The design of tube is constrained by the
suppliers as the dimensions of tubes that the suppliers could provide were very limited. Thus,
the designing phase had to come after material selection. Length of tube could be found after
knowing the materials, dimensions and the frequency of note. Frequency analysis would be run
in order to obtain the analysed frequency using that particular design. The analysis was run
using different materials to obtain the optimum dimensions of tube.

The design requirement for bicycle crank arm was to minimise the weight of the arm while
maintaining high degree of confidence in performance for the rider exerting a specific load on
the pedal. Weight saving design should be produced using static study, topology study and
design study simulation. These analysis would help improve the design by having several
constraints, such as fixed dimensions, low stresses and minimised weight. Manual calculations
were made in order to verify that the design had been optimised.

Finite elements analysis (FEA) is a method that help solve complex mechanical problems.
Many real life situations can be simulated using FEA, analysing and optimising the products
without prototyping. Problems are subdivided into smaller and simpler parts which are called
finite elements. The system equations that models the entire problem are made by assembling
all the simple equations used for finite elements. An approximate solution can be made by
minimising the error function.
WIND CHIME
METHODOLOGY
Material Selection
There were different types of materials that could be used to make a wind chime bell with note.
Once materials were chosen, the available stock tube could be found from the suppliers that
sell tubing with different dimensions. The dimensions of tubes might not be the same for all
the materials. In order to have better comparison between different types of materials, the
dimensions of different materials could not vary too far from each other.

Design of Tube
The length of tube could be found once the type of material and dimension of tube were decided.
Euler’s equation was used to predict the length of the tube using the frequency of the note
assigned, which was B4 in the scenario. Furthermore, it must be able to be hung outside on a
branch of tree. A radial through hole must be included where the location was 22.4% from the
end of the tube in order to run a thread through for hanging purpose. Example of calculations
were done in the calculation sections to find the length of tube.

Figure 1 : Design of Tube According to Calculation

Frequency Analysis
Frequency simulation was used to find the modelled natural frequency of the wind chime. No
fixture was applied to the simulation as the wind chime was considered as free – free beam in
this scenario. Besides, no external load was added into the simulation as well. As this was an
unrestrained frequency analysis, the frequencies of first 6 modes were expected to be 0 or near
to 0 Hz. The first 6 modes were considered as rigid body motions, causing the frequencies to
be nearly 0 Hz. The frequency of 7th mode shape was the analysed frequency of that particular
design.
Once the analysed frequency was obtained, the percentage difference between the frequency
of note B4 and the analysed frequency could be found. The lower the percentage difference,
the better the design is. Therefore, different designs were developed using different dimensions
and materials in order to find the suitable material and optimum length of tube for wind chime.

Figure 2 : List of Frequencies of Different Mode

CALCULATION
Properties of Materials
Aluminium was chosen to be the material of the wind chime.
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠, 𝐸𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑢𝑚 = 69 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠, 𝜌𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑢𝑚 = 2700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Dimension of Wind Chime

As the wind chime was a hollow cylinder, the diameter of the wind chime was set as below,
𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝐷𝑂 = 0.0127 𝑚
𝐼𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝐷𝐼 = 0.0063 𝑚

Cross Sectional Area of Wind Chime

𝜋
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐴 = (𝐷𝑂2 − 𝐷𝐼2 )
4
𝜋
= (0.01272 − 0.00632 )
4
= 𝟗. 𝟓𝟓𝟎 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟓 𝒎𝒎𝟐

Second Moment of Area of Wind Chime

𝜋
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐼 = (𝐷4 − 𝐷𝐼4 )
64 𝑂
𝜋
= (0.01274 − 0.00634 )
64
= 𝟏. 𝟐𝟎𝟎 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟗 𝒎𝒎𝟒

Length of Wind Chime

The Euler’s Equation used in this case was as below,
(λ𝑟 𝐿)2 𝐸𝐼
𝑓= √𝜌𝐴 … … (1)
2𝜋𝐿2

𝑓 − 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠
λ𝑟 𝐿 − 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
𝐿 − 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑚𝑒

As the note of the wind chime was B4, thus the frequency of the note, 𝑓𝐵4 was 493.88 Hz.
The constant of the Equation 1 was 4.73 as the condition used in this case was free – free beam.
By substituting the frequency of the note into Equation 1, length of the wind chime could be
found.
 (4.73)2 (69 × 109 )(1.200 × 10−9 )
493.88 = √
2𝜋𝐿2 (2700)(9.550 × 10−5 )

(4.73)2 (69 × 109 )(1.200 × 10−9 )

𝐿2 = √
2𝜋(493.88) (2700)(9.550 × 10−5 )
= 0.1292
𝐿 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟗𝟒 𝒎

Location of Hole
The location of hole was 22.4% of length from either end of the tube.
𝐿𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑒 = 22.4% × 𝐿
= 0.224 × 0.3594
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝟎𝟓 𝒎

Percentage Difference of Natural Frequency

From Figure 1, the analysed frequency was found to be 491.15 Hz.
𝑓𝐵4 = 493.88 𝐻𝑧
𝑓𝐴𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 491.15 𝐻𝑧
𝑓𝐵4 − 𝑓𝐴𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 100%
𝑓𝐵4
493.88 − 491.15
= × 100%
493.88
= 𝟎. 𝟓𝟓𝟕%
ANALYSIS

The calculation above was an example of finding length of wind chime when material and
dimensions were known. Analysed frequency could be obtained through Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) method. Finally, the percentage difference could be found by comparing the
frequency of the selected note, B4 and the analysed frequency. However, percentage difference
was not the only factor that needed to be considered in order to produce the optimum length of
the wind chime. There were many other factors that needed to be examined, such as cost,
materials and dimensions that were available from suppliers. Six different materials were taken
into consideration, which are Aluminium, Brass, Copper, Magnesium, Nickel and Steel.
Furthermore, dimensions of rods could be varied very differently depending on the available
stock that the suppliers have. When the length of wind chime was found using the calculation
above, the cost could be analysed according to the materials, diameter and length.

Aluminium Brass Copper Magnesium Nickel Steel

Outer
0.0127 0.0094 0.0150 0.0220 0.0127 0.0127
Diameter (m)
Inner Diameter
0.0063 0.0062 0.0136 0.0180 0.0095 0.0097
(m)
Length (m) 0.3594 0.2630 0.3582 0.5134 0.3769 0.3845

Frequency (Hz) 491.15 488.77 484.17 489.10 490.19 490.19

Percentage
0.553 1.035 1.966 0.968 0.747 0.747
Difference (%)
Cost (£) 0.93 3.27 1.98 2.19 4.65 2.14
Table 1 : Comparison of Percentage Difference and Cost among all Materials

The table above was made to compare all the best options from different materials. Percentage
difference between frequency of B4 and analysed frequency and cost of materials were the two
main concerns that needed to be taken into consideration.
The design for the wind chime could be found using Table 1, which was the best option made
from aluminium where it had the lowest percentage difference of 0.557% and cost of £0.93
among all the options.
Aluminium [A]
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝐴𝑙 = 69 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝐴𝑙 = 2700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0095 0.0063 4.73 3.971E-05 3.225E-10 0.3223 0.0346 0.55 490.94 0.595
0.0127 0.0095 4.73 5.579E-05 8.772E-10 0.3801 0.0573 0.66 490.83 0.618
0.0127 0.0063 4.73 9.550E-05 1.200E-09 0.3594 0.0927 0.93 491.15 0.553
0.0158 0.0126 4.73 7.138E-05 1.822E-09 0.4291 0.0827 0.85 490.26 0.733
0.0158 0.0094 4.73 1.267E-04 2.676E-09 0.4093 0.1400 1.33 490.62 0.660
0.0190 0.0158 4.73 8.746E-05 3.338E-09 0.4745 0.1121 1.36 489.53 0.881
0.0190 0.0126 4.73 1.588E-04 5.160E-09 0.4558 0.1955 2.07 489.92 0.802
Table 2 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Aluminium

From the table above, the third option was the best fit among all the options. It had the lowest percentage difference of 0.553%, having analysed
frequency of 491.15 Hz. Although the first option had the lowest cost but slightly higher percentage difference compared to third option, third
option was more suitable. As the cost of aluminium was very low, the option with lowest percentage difference favoured more in this case.
Brass [B]
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 100 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 8500 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0094 0.0062 4.73 3.896E-05 3.049E-10 0.2630 0.0871 3.47 488.77 1.035
0.0127 0.0095 4.73 5.579E-05 8.772E-10 0.3131 0.1485 5.74 489.06 0.976
0.0158 0.0126 4.73 7.138E-05 1.822E-09 0.3535 0.2144 8.15 488.33 1.124
0.0191 0.0159 4.73 8.771E-05 3.367E-09 0.3914 0.2918 10.96 487.34 1.324
0.0254 0.0222 4.73 1.196E-04 8.509E-09 0.4567 0.4644 16.91 485.21 1.755
0.0318 0.0286 4.73 1.518E-04 1.735E-08 0.5142 0.6635 23.17 483.01 2.201
0.0381 0.0349 4.73 1.835E-04 3.061E-08 0.5652 0.8814 31.67 480.92 2.624
Table 3 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Brass

From the table above, the first option was the best fit among all the options. It had the lowest cost of £3.47 compared to the other options. Although
the second option had the lowest percentage difference, the cost was much higher than the first option. Brass material was very expensive, making
the cost as the major concern in this case.
Copper [C]
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 = 110 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 = 8900 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0150 0.0136 4.73 3.145E-05 8.058E-10 0.3582 0.1003 1.98 484.17 1.966
0.0220 0.0202 4.73 5.966E-05 3.326E-09 0.4350 0.2310 4.81 486.17 1.561
0.0280 0.0262 4.73 7.662E-05 7.042E-09 0.4929 0.3362 6.84 484.24 1.952
0.0350 0.0320 4.73 1.579E-04 2.219E-08 0.5482 0.7702 42.72 482.11 2.383
Table 4 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Copper

From the table above, the first option was the best fit among all the options. It had the lowest cost of £1.98 compared to the other options. Although
the second option had the lowest percentage difference, the cost was much higher than the first option. Copper material was very expensive as
well, causing the cost to be the biggest concern in the case. There were not many options in terms of dimensions for copper material compared to
other materials due to lack of suppliers.
Magnesium [D]
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑢𝑚 = 45 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑢𝑚 = 1700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0220 0.0180 4.73 1.257E-04 6.346E-09 0.5134 0.1097 2.19 489.10 0.968
0.0245 0.0205 4.73 1.414E-04 9.017E-09 0.5443 0.1308 2.62 488.47 1.095
0.0250 0.0220 4.73 1.107E-04 7.676E-09 0.5557 0.1046 2.09 488.27 1.136
0.0250 0.0210 4.73 1.445E-04 9.628E-09 0.5503 0.1352 2.70 488.29 1.132
0.0250 0.0200 4.73 1.767E-04 1.132E-08 0.5449 0.1637 3.27 488.46 1.097
Table 5 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Magnesium

From the table above, the first option was the best fit among all the options. It had the lowest cost of £2.19 and the lowest percentage difference
compared to the other options. There were not many options in terms of dimensions for magnesium material compared to other materials due to
lack of suppliers.
Nickel [E]

𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝑁𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑙 = 210 𝐺𝑃𝑎

𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝑁𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑙 = 8500 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0095 0.0063 4.73 3.971E-05 3.225E-10 0.3196 0.1079 2.80 487.63 1.265
0.0127 0.0095 4.73 5.579E-05 8.772E-10 0.3769 0.1788 4.65 490.19 0.747
0.0127 0.0063 4.73 9.550E-05 1.200E-09 0.3564 0.2893 7.52 489.88 0.810
0.0158 0.0126 4.73 7.138E-05 1.822E-09 0.4255 0.2582 6.71 489.99 0.788
0.0158 0.0094 4.73 1.267E-04 2.676E-09 0.4058 0.4370 11.36 490.34 0.717
0.0190 0.0158 4.73 8.746E-05 3.338E-09 0.4705 0.3498 9.09 489.48 0.891
0.0190 0.0126 4.73 1.588E-04 5.160E-09 0.4519 0.6102 15.86 489.89 0.808
Table 6 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Nickel

From the table above, the second option was the best fit among all the options. It had the second lowest percentage difference of 0.747% and
second lowest cost of £4.65 compared to the others. Although first option had the lowest cost among all the options, the percentage difference was
too high compared to option 2. Option 5 had the lowest percentage difference, but the cost was too high compared to option 2. Thus, option 2 fitted
the best in this scenario.
Steel [F]
𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝐸𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 207 𝐺𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜌𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 1700 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Outer Inner Const Cross Sectional Second Moment of Length Weight Cost Frequency Percentage
Diameter (m) Diameter (m) ant Area (m2) Area (m4) (m) (kg) (£) (Hz) Difference (%)
0.0100 0.0070 4.73 4.006E-05 3.730E-10 0.3360 0.1058 5.49 489.00 0.988
0.0127 0.0097 4.73 5.278E-05 8.424E-10 0.3845 0.1595 2.14 490.19 0.747
0.0158 0.0134 4.73 5.504E-05 1.476E-09 0.4378 0.1894 12.64 490.02 0.782
0.0191 0.0167 4.73 6.729E-05 2.692E-09 0.4838 0.2559 5.41 490.82 0.620
0.0191 0.0158 4.73 8.871E-05 3.398E-09 0.4785 0.3337 18.18 490.32 0.721
Table 7 : List of Cost, Frequency and Percentage Difference for Steel

From the table above, the second option was the best fit among all the options. It had the lowest cost of £2.14 compared to the others. Although option
4 and 5 had lower percentage difference, the costs were much higher compared to option 2. Thus, option 2 fitted the best in the scenario.
CRANK ARM
METHODOLOGY
Basic Design
The main task of this project was to improve and optimise a basic crank arm into a high
performance crank arm where it could be used for ‘High Street Retail Level’ mountain bike.
An initial design was produced and used as basic design of the project where it could be
improved and optimised in order to achieve the target. Significant design freedom was given
as the crank would be mass manufactured. Different types of materials could be chosen as well.
However, the design was constrained by few dimensions that were given.

Figure 3 : Basic Design of Crank Arm

The diameter of the holes and distance between the centres of holes were fixed. The basic
design was produced using the fixed dimensions. The chosen material for this crank arm was
Aluminium Alloy, Al6061 – T6 as it had very high yield strength, which would help reduce
the mass but maintaining high performance.
Static Simulation
Once the basic design was generated, static simulation could be done in order to calculate the
geometry stress and deformation. A fixed geometry was added to the crank as one end of the
crank was fixed to the bicycle while a remote load was applied to the other end as the pedal
load was exerted to the crank. Maximum von Mises stress could be found by running the static
simulation. Von Mises stress was used as the yield stress criterion in this case, it should not
exceed the yield strength of the material to ensure that the crank would not fail when force was
applying.

Figure 4 : Static Simulation of Basic Design

Fixed geometry was added to the hole on the left side while 900 N of remote force was applied
to the hole on the right side. From the figure above, the maximum von Mises stress was much
lower than the yield strength of the material. This was due to no mass optimisation was done
for the design. Topology study or design study had to be done in order to reduce the mass while
maintain the maximum von Mises stress below the yield strength.
Topology Study
Mass reduction had to be undergone in order to minimise the mass while maintain the
performance of the crank. At this stage, topology study was used to optimise the design. Using
topology study would allow the software to show where material could be removed to minimise
the mass based on the parameters defined. In this scenario, the function of topology study was
to set a target mass reduction, either in percentage or exact value, as weight minimising was
considered as the main objective. Design could be altered using the result found from the
topology study in order to provide the best stiffness to weight ratio.

Figure 5 : Topology Study of Basic Design

Topology study was simulated using best stiffness to weight ratio. The target mass reduction
used in this case was 50%. From the figure above, the blue region was the region where material
could be removed from the basic design in order to achieve high stiffness to weight ratio.
According to the results, there were two main parts that needed to be removed. The first one is
the middle region where connecting the two holes while the other part was both ends of the
crank. The design was altered by reducing the thickness of the middle region and radius of the
arc of both ends of the crank.
Figure 6 : Altered Design using Result from Topology Study

Design Study
After altering the design, it could be further improved and optimised by running design study.
In this case, mass reduction was the goal in this design study. Design study would run multiple
simulations to achieve the goal by modifying multiple variables from the design for iterative
changes while maintaining limits on other parameters without failing.

Figure 7 : Design Study of Crank Arm

Different variables were used to run the design study in order to get the optimum dimensions.
Maximum von Mises stress was used as constraint where it had to be less than half the yield
strength of the material. This was due to the consideration of safety factor of the crank arm.
Minimised mass was used as the goal of the study as mass was the biggest concern in this
scenario.

Figure 8 : Design Study Result

After several times of running design study, the final optimum mass could be obtained from
the analysis.

Figure 9 : Static Simulation of Final Design

CALCULATION

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡, 𝐿 = 0.170 𝑚 b

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑃𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡, 𝐷 = 0.060 𝑚

𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ, 𝑏 = 0.030 𝑚

𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑑 = 0.019 𝑚

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒, 𝐹 = 900 𝑁

Bending Moment
The bending moment is calculated by multiplying the force acted on the pedal by the
perpendicular distance from the fixed point.

𝑀 = 𝐹𝐿
= 900 × 0.170
= 𝟏𝟓𝟑 𝑵𝒎

Moment of Inertia
Cross section of the crank was rectangular shape, moment of inertia could be found as below,

𝑏𝑑 3
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎, 𝐼 =
12
0.030 × 0.0193
=
12
= 𝟏. 𝟕𝟏𝟓 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟖 𝒎𝒎𝟒
Perpendicular Distance from Neutral Axis
𝑑
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑁𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑥𝑖𝑠, 𝑦 =
2
0.019
=
2
= 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟓 𝒎

Bending Stress
𝑀𝑦
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝜎𝐵 =
𝐼
153 × 0.0095
=
1.715 × 10−8
= 𝟖𝟒. 𝟕𝟔𝟓 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Torque
The torque was the multiplication of pedal force and the perpendicular distance from load point
of the crank arm.

𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒, 𝑇 = 𝐹 × 𝐷
= 900 × 0.060
= 𝟓𝟒 𝑵𝒎

Shear Stress

3𝑇 𝑑 𝑑 2 𝑑 3 𝑑 4
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝜏 = 2 [1 + 0.6095 ( ) + 0.8865 ( ) − 1.8023 ( ) + 0.9100 ( )
𝑏𝑑 𝑏 𝑏 𝑏 𝑏
2
3(54) 0.019 0.019
= 2
[1 + 0.6095 ( ) + 0.8865 ( )
0.030 × 0.019 0.030 0.030
0.019 3 0.019 4
− 1.8023 ( ) + 0.9100 ( ) ]
0.030 0.030
= 𝟐𝟏. 𝟑𝟗𝟑 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Mohr’s Circle
𝜎𝐵
𝐶=
2
84.765
=
2
= 𝟒𝟐. 𝟑𝟖𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂
 𝜎𝐵 2
𝑅 = √( ) + 𝜏2
2
= √(42.382)2 + (21.393)2
= 𝟒𝟕. 𝟒𝟕𝟓 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝜎1 = 0
𝜎2 = 𝐶 − 𝑅
= 42.382 − 47.475
= −5.093 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎3 = 𝐶 + 𝑅
= 42.382 + 47.475
= 89.878 𝑀𝑃𝑎

Von Mises Yield Criteria

1
𝜎𝑉𝑀 = √ [(𝜎1 − 𝜎2 )2 + (𝜎2 − 𝜎3 )2 + (𝜎3 − 𝜎1 )2 ]
2

1
= √ [(0 + 5.093)2 + (−5.093 − 89.878)2 + (89.878)2 ]
2
= 𝟗𝟐. 𝟓𝟎𝟗 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Figure 10 : Mohr’s Circle of Manual Calculation

ANALYSIS
By completing the studies that had mentioned above, the final design was produced. There
were five variables included in the design study, such as width, radius of arc and thickness.
Multiple combination of variables were compared in order to modify the current design.
Furthermore, safety factor had to be taken into consideration in order to provide a high degree
of confidence level of performance for the bicycle riders. It is the ratio of yield strength of the
selected material to maximum von Mises stress found using simulation.

Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Width_Fixed (mm) 18 18 18 19 19 19 19

Width_Load (mm) 12 10 10 9 9 10 11

Diameter_Fixed (mm) 22 24 24 23 22 21 20

Diameter_Load (mm) 18 20 20 19 19 19 19

Thickness (mm) 30 20 21 20 20 19 18
Max von Mises stress
115.47 134.48 123.77 134.98 134.77 134.03 128.95
(MPa)
Yield Strength (MPa) 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00

Safety Factor 2.38 2.04 2.22 2.04 2.04 2.05 2.13

Mass (g) 76.554 54.088 56.179 52.388 51.546 50.094 48.528

Table 8 : Comparison of Similar Designs

From the table above, option 1 had the highest maximum von Mises stress of 115.47 MPa and
safety factor of 2.38 among all the designs, but having the highest mass of 76.554 g. Option 7
had the lowest mass of 48.528 g and optimum maximum von Mises stress of 128.95 MPa. The
main objective of this design was to minimise the weight of the crank. Therefore, option 7
fitted the best in this scenario as it had the lowest mass among all of the designs. Besides, the
maximum von Mises stress between option 7 and 1 was not very big.
Percentage Difference of Von Mises Stress
From the calculation above, the calculated von Mises stress, 𝜎𝐶𝑎𝑙 at the hole where force
acted on was found to be 92.509 MPa.

Figure 11 : Analysed Von Mises Stress at that Area

From the figure above, the analysed von Mises stress, 𝜎𝐴𝑛𝑎 at that cross section area was
found to be 88.640 MPa using the probe function in the static simulation.

𝜎𝐶𝑎𝑙 − 𝜎𝐴𝑛𝑎
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 100%
𝜎𝐶𝑎𝑙
92.509 − 88.640
= × 100%
92.509
= 𝟒. 𝟏𝟖%

.
Figure 12 : Original Crank Static Simulation and Mass Properties

Aluminium alloy 6061 was used in the original design. It has very low yield strength compared
to other aluminium alloy. When static simulation was run, the maximum von Mises stress had
exceeded the yield strength of the material, which made this design to be a failure. The safety
factor was lower than 1. Moreover, the mass of the original crank was very high compared to
the final design.

Mass Reduction
(𝑚𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 − 𝑚𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 )
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × 100%
𝑚𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙
107.89 − 48.528
= × 100%
107.89
= 𝟓𝟓. 𝟎𝟐%
CONCLUSION
Two parts of the assignment were done using simulations that performed finite element analysis.
Frequency simulation was used during designing the wind chime bell. The result of frequency
simulation had very little difference compared to the real frequency. All percentage differences
between analysed and real frequencies were smaller than 3%. It showed that the results
obtained from FEA were very accurate.

During designing the bicycle crank arm, static simulation, topology study and design study
were used to reach the final results. The percentage difference of von Mises stress between
calculated and analysed stress was 4.18%. High mass reduction of crank arm was achieved
while maintaining safety factor of 2 by 55.02% compared to the original design. This had
proved that optimisation of design using FEA was very effective.

Finite element method is now commonly used in design and development of products as
problems can be solved without prototype. Dangerous situation can be simulated using FEM.
Moreover, FEM will have a relatively low cost but rapid calculation time for most of the
applications. However, results taken from FEA can be inaccurate as well. They have to be
compared with prototype testing or manual calculation for verification purpose.
APPENDIX
[A] : https://www.metals4u.co.uk/aluminium/c1/tube/c22

[B] : https://www.metals4u.co.uk/brass/c2/tube/c30

[C] : https://www.wolseley.co.uk/pipe-systems/metal-pipes-and-copper-tubes/copper-pipe/

[D] : https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/magnesium-tube-
az31b_60549925006.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.126.31f9826b1xEkqu

[E] : https://www.eaglealloys.com/tube-sizes-2/
https://agmetalminer.com/metal-prices/nickel-alloy/

[F] : https://www.metals4u.co.uk/stainless-steel/c8/tube/c85