Anda di halaman 1dari 35

London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Solid Mechanics and FEA B


MED_5_SME

FEA assignment: Weight Reduction in a Bicycle Crank Arm for World Record attempt
HPV.

Name: Jonathan Davis

Student Number: 3420574

Date 19/05/2017

1.0 Abstract

An original bicycle crank was analysed and optimised using Autodesk Inventor so that it could support
a static point load of 2000N at three different crank positions, 0, 45 and 90.

The crank optimisation was successful in taking the load at all three positions however further
research needs to be made in order to confirm the force exerted by a rider on the crank is 2000N.

1
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

2.0 Contents

1.0 Abstract...................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Contents.......................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Objective......................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Component for analysis............................................................................................3
4.1 Dimensions.............................................................................................................3
4.2 Material properties.................................................................................................3
4.0 Boundary Conditions................................................................................................4
5.1 Loads...................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Mesh Settings.........................................................................................................5
5.3 Convergence Settings...........................................................................................5
6.0 Material Choice...............................................................................................................8
7.0 Original Crank Simulation.........................................................................................9
7.1 Failure criteria............................................................................................................9
7.2 0 Crank Position Scenario.......................................................................................9
7.2.1 Von Mises Stresses.........................................................................................9
7.2.2 Displacement.................................................................................................10
7.2.3 Safety Factor.................................................................................................10
7.3 45 Crank Position Scenario................................................................................11
7.3.1 Von Mises Stresses.......................................................................................12
7.3.2 Displacement.................................................................................................12
7.3.3 Safety Factor.................................................................................................13
7.4 90 Crank Position Scenario...............................................................................13
6.4.1 Von Mises Stresses.......................................................................................13
7.4.2 Displacement.................................................................................................14
7.4.3 Safety Factor.................................................................................................14
8.0 Initial Design Optimisation......................................................................................14
9.0 Optimisation using Inventor Shape generator......................................................16
10.0 Optimisation based on original stress analysis....................................................18
10.1 45 Crank Position Scenario...............................................................................20
10.1.1 Von Mises Stress...........................................................................................20
10.1.2 Displacement....................................................................................................20
10.1.3 Safety factor..................................................................................................21

2
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

10.2 0 Crank Position Scenario.................................................................................21


10.2.1 Von Mises Stress...........................................................................................21
10.2.2 Displacement.................................................................................................22
10.2.3 Safety Factor................................................................................................22
10.3 90 Crank Position Scenario...............................................................................23
10.3.1 Von Mises Stress...........................................................................................23
10.3.2 Displacement.................................................................................................23
11.0 Thickness optimisation...........................................................................................24
12.0 Results & conclusion.................................................................................................25
13.0 Sources of error......................................................................................................... 26
16.0 Appendices.............................................................................................................. 27

3.0 Objective

To use Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to conduct a static structural analysis on the linear Von
Mises Stress and deformation on a bicycle crank arm under load.

Using this data, the design is to be optimised to minimise weight of the crank.

This analysis was conducted using the Autodesk Stress analysis tool.

4.0 Component for analysis


4.1 Dimensions

For engineering drawing of component see appendix C.

4.2 Material properties

The given material for the component is aluminium 6061. Further research is to be
conducted to test for a more suitable material choice.

Material properties Aluminium 6061


(data from Inventor materials library)
Youngs modulus 68.9 GPa
Tensile Strength 310 MPa
Yield Strength 275 MPa
Poissons ratio 0.33
Density 2.7g/cm^3
Shear Modulus 25864 MPa

3
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Table 1: Material properties table for Aluminium 6061

4.0 Boundary Conditions

Figure 1: Boundary constraints on bicycle crank.

In order to minimise Poissons effect the following constraints were put in place:

Frictionless constraints on the bolt fixings.


Pin constraint on component pivot.

5.1 Loads
The client gave a recommended static point load of 2000N as the force exerted on the crank
by the rider. Further research was conducted to confirm that 2000N was an appropriate
representative force. There were community opinions from various sources that suggested
that the force exerted on the crank by the rider is about 1200N, however these sources had
no quantifiable data to back up these claims and no other relevant data could found that
would suggest a force of 1200N.

As such a static point load of 2000N was used, as per the clients recommendation,
to represent the maximum force exerted by the rider. The load was applied in three
different positions in the power stroke:

Figure 2: Different crank positions shown in degrees from the horizontal for analysis.

4
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

5.2 Mesh Settings

The default mesh settings were used initially to create a reference point from which
the mesh could be optimised from.

For the convergence rate to be calculated the simulation needed to be run therefore
all appropriate loads and boundary conditions needed to be in place. As such the
load condition was set at the 0 crank position for mesh refinement.

5.3 Convergence Settings

By default, Inventor uses 3 P refinements for convergence. The initial convergence


results with no H refinements yields a convergence rate of 12.661%.

Figure 3: Initial mesh and convergence results using default settings.

From these results, it was concluded that additional H refinements were necessary
to obtain accurate and reliable results. As such the settings were adjusted so that 5
H refinements were made.

Figure 4: Mesh and Convergence Rate at 5 H refinements.


London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

From this initial refinement, it was observed that the convergence rate had reduced
to 5.384%. Whilst this was a significant improvement over the original convergence
rating of 12.661% the convergence plot had not plateaued when the mesh
refinement had finished. This indicated that further refinements would yield a
significant increase in mesh accuracy. As such the settings were adjusted so that 10
H refinements were made.

Figure 5: Mesh and Convergence Rate at 10 H refinements.

As shown in the figure above, with 10 H refinements the convergence rate dropped
to 0% which indicated that the current mesh settings would have provided accurate
results however, due to the element size, the cylindrical features were being
misrepresented in the mesh giving the cylinder a faceted appearance as shown in
the figure below.

6
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Figure 6: Faceting around cylindrical geometry

This faceting would lead to an increase in Possions effect. This is due to the
increase in Von Mises Stress at the vertex of this shape were as in the original
cylindrical geometry the load would be evenly distributed across the circular cross-
section.

To correct this, local mesh control was used in order to refine the mesh around the
cylindrical geometry in the part as shown in the figure below.

The increase in Von Mises Stress due to the faceting on the cylindrical geometry is
observed by the decrease of 85.3MPa in the maximum Von Mises Stress in the
simulation using local mesh control.

It was noticed that the use of frictionless constraints was unsuitable to represent the
use of bolts as such; fixed constraints were used from this point forth.

Figure 7: Refined mesh using local mesh control.

7
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

6.0 Material Choice

The original part for analysis is made from aluminium 6061. Tests were conducted to
determine whether aluminium is an appropriate material choice or whether a different
material would perform more efficiently.

For this test, the following materials were tested for safety factor under the 45 load
condition:
Aluminium 6061
Mild Steel
Carbon Fibre
Titanium

For full results see appendix

Material Minimum safety factor Mass (kg)(3 sig fig)


Aluminium 6061 0.77 0.246
Mild Steel 0.54 0.714
Carbon Fibre (CFRP) 0.94 0.130
Titanium 0.81 0.410
Table 2: Table showing minimum safety factor at 45and mass of original part made from different materials

These results show that carbon fibre is the best material choice for this part however
there are two main reasons why carbon fibre was not chosen. The first of these
reasons is that carbon fibre is a non-linear material, in this case it will be strong in
certain axis and weaker in others. Due to the limitations of the Inventor software the
FEA analysis cannot simulate non-linear materials, therefore the results from the
CFRP analysis are not reliable. The second reason is to do with the failure of carbon
fibre. Carbon fibre is a very brittle material as shown in the stress-strain curve below:

Figure 8: Corrected data for Carbon Fibre (Tensile Test Experiment, no date)

As shown in this data when carbon fibre failures, it shatters which poses a health
and safety risk for the rider as they will be near the crank and are likely to be hit by
the shrapnel.

8
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

The second-best material choice with regards to minimum safety factor was titanium.
There were however several draw backs to titanium which made it an unsuitable
choice. The first reason is that it is a denser material than aluminium causing the
mass of the part to be almost double compared to that of the part made with
aluminium (0.410kg compared to 0.246kg). Titanium is also a lot harder to machine
and is a far costlier material than aluminium.

As such it was decided that Aluminium 6061 was the best material choice from the
tested materials due to its acceptable minimum safety factor, low density, low cost
and ease of manufacture.

7.0 Original Crank Simulation

7.1 Failure criteria

The ratio between the Maximum Von Mises Stress and the yield strength of the
material is known as the safety factor. For this part, the safety factor must be greater
than or equal to 1 meaning that the maximum working Von Mises stress must be less
than or equal to the yield strength of aluminium 6061.

The yield Strength 275.031868 MPa (according to Autodesk Inventor materials


library), therefore the maximum Von Mises Stress allowable before the part is
considered to have failed is 275.031868 MPa.

7.2 0 Crank Position Scenario

When the crank is at 0 to the vertical the force exerted by the rider acts parallel to
the central axis of the shaft. The results for the simulation are shown below.

7.2.1 Von Mises Stresses

Figure 9: 0Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank

9
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

As can been seen in the figure above the maximum Von Mises Stress is 302.1MPa
which exceeds the maximum allowable Von Mises Stress, therefore there is a wide
range in Von Mises stresses (0-302.1 MPa). The maximum Von Mises stresses
occur in the circular holes near where the pedal attaches and the force from the rider
is applied. The minimum Von Mises Stresses occur near the bolt holes where the
crank attaches to the hub. This indicates that the area near the bolt holes is under
performing and can be optimised to reduce mass.

7.2.2 Displacement

Figure 10: 0Crank position displacement simulation on original crank

The simulation shows a maximum displacement of 2.88mm which will act as a


benchmark for the optimised design.

7.2.3 Safety Factor

Figure 11: 0Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank

10
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

The simulation results show a minimum safety factor of 0.91 near to where the load
is applied. The safety factor is less than 1 and so the aluminium at that point has
passed its yield strength and has plastically deformed, as such the part has failed.

It was also observed that there was a maximum safety factor of 15 at the boltholes
on the furthest side of the crank from the pedal axial. Referring back to the results
gathered from the Von Mises Stress analysis, it can be seen that the stress at this
point is 0MPa. This leads on to how the safety factor is calculated:
yield stress
safety factor=
working stress
Due to this calculation when the working stress approaches zero the safety factor
exponentially increases as such, on default settings, inventor caps the safety factor
at 15.

7.3 45 Crank Position Scenario

To input the 2000N load into Inventor at 45 from the horizontal, the load needed to
be expressed in vector components. As the load angle is 45, both the x and y axis
components are equal, therefore Pythagoras theorem can be used to calculate the
component vectors as shown in the figure below.

Figure 12: Load vector component calculation for 45 from the horizontal

11
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

7.3.1 Von Mises Stresses

Figure 13: 45Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank.

With the load at 45 there is a higher maximum Von Mises stress, 344.1MPa, than in the 0
loading scenario, 302.1 MPa. This maximum value occurs on the top right bolt hole. As with
the 0 scenario, the lowest Von Mises stress values occur at the bolt holes where the crank
connects to the hub except for the top right bolt hole.

7.3.2 Displacement

Figure 14: 45Crank position displacement simulation on original crank

The results from this simulation show a displacement of 2.134mm which will act as a bench
mark for the optimised design.

12
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

7.3.3 Safety Factor

Figure 15: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank

With a minimum safety factor of 0.8 at the top right bolt hole, the aluminium has again
passed its yield strength and has plastically deformed.

As with the 0 load scenario the highest safety factor occurs around the bolt holes to the left
of the hub axle where there is 0MPa Stress.

7.4 90 Crank Position Scenario

6.4.1 Von Mises Stresses

Figure 16: 90Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank

With the load at 90 there is a maximum Von Mises stress of 314.5MPa. This maximum
value occurs on the bottom right bolt hole. As with the 0 and 45 scenario, the lowest Von
Mises stress values occur at the bolt holes where the crank connects to the hub except for
the bottom right bolt hole.

13
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

7.4.2 Displacement

Figure 17: 90Crank position displacement simulation on original crank

The results from this simulation show a maximum displacement of 0.4979mm which below
the maximum allowed displacement of 1mm. The optimised design did not have to focus on
reducing the displacement with the load in this orientation.

7.4.3 Safety Factor

With a minimum safety factor of 0.87 at the bottom right bolt hole, the aluminium has again
Figure 18: 90Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank

passed its yield strength and has plastically deformed.

As with the 0 and 45 load scenario the highest safety factor occurs around the bolt holes to
the left of the hub axle where there is 0MPa Stress.

8.0 Initial Design Optimisation

Since the original part failed in every load position with regards to safety factor the first
optimisation to be made was to increase the volume of material used in the design until the
desired safety factor of 2 was reached. After this the design could then be optimised to
reduce the mass the material used whilst maintaining the safety factor.

14
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

To increase the safety factor all previous design optimisation feature was removed. The
features removed were the taper from the hub axle to the pedal axle and the three holes in
the centre of the crank.

Figure 19: Crank with original design optimisations removed.

To save computational calculation time the simulation tests were run with the 45 load
scenario as this gave the lowest minimum safety factor. The part would then be simulated
under the 0 and 90 load scenarios once the part had reached the minimum safety factor
requirement for the 45 load scenario.

Figure 20:: 45 load angle safety factor simulation with original design optimisations removed.

The minimum safety factor in this configuration was 1.04 which indicates that the part has
not passed its yield strength. Further optimisation was required to optimise the material used
in order to reduce weight.

15

Figure 21: 45 load angle stress simulation with original design optimisations removed.
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

It is observed in the figure above that the stresses occur around the bolt holes on the right
side and so the next stage in the design optimisation was focused around these areas.

9.0 Optimisation using Inventor Shape generator

The shape generator in Inventor reduces the mass of a part by subtracting the areas that are
under performing. It works in a similar way to FEA in that it generates a mesh of the part and
uses loads and boundary conditions to calculate the mesh reduction.

Figure 22: Shape generator settings

The figure above shows the boundary conditions for the


shape generator. The same constraints as the stress analysis
were applied for the shape generation. The areas in green
represent preserved regions. These are regions that will not
be included in the mesh optimisation. In the shape generator
settings the reduce mass target was placed at 70% so that it is clear what regions are being
reduced and what are being kept in the results. All other settings were left at default as these
results are for visual reference when re-modelling the crank.

The shape generator was run with each load position and the results were superimposed to
create a shape that should satisfy all three loading conditions.

Region A Region B

16
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Region C

Figure 23: Superimposed shape generator results

From the above results, it was observed that region A, B and C are the regions in which the
material was underperforming and could therefore be removed. These results were the used
as reference to create a new crank.

Figure 24: Optimisation based on shape generator results

This iteration of the bicycle crank had the same thickness of 12mm as the original crank. The
test for this iteration also had a higher mass than the original part, 0.292kg compared to
0.246kg (3 sig fig). The simulation for this iteration was still run to see if it distributed the load
more effectively than the original, thus reducing localised stress and increasing the safety
factor.

17
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Figure 25: 45 load angle stress simulation on shape generator optimisation.

The results show a safety factor of 0.83, whilst this is a slight increase over the original
safety factor of 0.8 it is still below 1. As such the part has plastically deformed and has
therefore failed.

At this stage, it was realised that there are too many limitations to Shape generator for it to
produce meaningful results in this scenario. There are two main limitations that make shape
generator unsuitable for this study. Firstly, the only available design objective is mass
reduction, this means that the shape generator algorithm does not consider the safety factor
of the part. The other main limitation is that the fact that shape generator can only use one
load condition at a time. This meant that, although the mass reduction target was set to 70%,
this only considered one load condition. As such by the time the structures for all three load
conditions were superimposed, the mass was far higher than the 70% reduction that was
aimed for, so much so that the optimisation was heavier than the original.

10.0 Optimisation based on original stress analysis

Since shape generator failed to produce the required results it was decided to optimise the
design based on the original results from the 45 load angle scenario.

As can be seen in figure 13, there are high stresses concentrated round the right bolt holes.
To reduce the stress in these areas, material from in front of the right bolt holes was
removed as shown below.

18
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Hole removed

Holes moved for


Removed regions even distribution

Figure 26: Optimisation with material removed from right bolt holes.

In addition to removing material from the mentioned regions the existing holes were
repositioned and had 3mm fillets added to them. The 45 load angle simulation was then
conducted on the part.

For this simulation, in order to save computational time, the number of H-refinements was
reduced to 6, this still gave a highly acceptable convergence rating of 0.644%. Appropriate
local mesh control was then added to maintain geometrical accuracy.

19
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Figure 27: Mesh view on optimised part with convergence rating

10.1 45 Crank Position Scenario


The optimised part was then run under the 45 loading condition.

10.1.1 Von Mises Stress

Figure 28: 45Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on optimised crank

20
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

10.1.2 Displacement

Figure 29: 45Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank.

10.1.3 Safety factor

Figure 30: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank.

The above results show that the part optimisation was a success in this load condition,
producing a minimum safety factor of 1.01 and reducing the maximum stress from 344.1MPa
to 273MPa. There was no significant decrease in displacement (2.134mm to 2.102mm)
however the part can still be considered successful as it did not exceed the original
displacement. Following the success in the 45 load condition the part was then tested under
the remaining two load conditions 0 and 90.

10.2 0 Crank Position Scenario

21
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

10.2.1 Von Mises Stress

Figure 31: 0Crank position Von Mises stress simulation on optimised crank.

10.2.2 Displacement

Figure 32: 0Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank.

10.2.3 Safety Factor

Figure 33: 0Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank.

The above results show that the part optimisation was a success in this load condition,
producing a minimum safety factor of 1.02 and reducing the maximum stress from 302.1MPa

22
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

to 270.9MPa. There was no significant decrease in displacement (2.88mm to 2.84mm)


however the part can still be considered successful as it did not exceed the original
displacement.

10.3 90 Crank Position Scenario

10.3.1 Von Mises Stress

Figure 34: 90Crank position Von Mises stress simulation on optimised crank.

10.3.2 Displacement

Figure 35: 90Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank.

23
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Figure 36: 90Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank.

The above results show that the part optimisation was a success in this load condition,
producing a minimum safety factor of 1.03 and reducing the maximum stress from 314.5
MPa to 270.9MPa. There was no significant decrease in displacement (0.4979mm to
0.4726mm) however the part can still be considered successful as it did not exceed the
original displacement.

11.0 Thickness optimisation


Now that a successful design had been obtained the part could then be subject to further
optimisation. One of the clients parameters for optimisation was the thickness and so the
part was simulated under various thicknesses to see if the thickness could be reduced whilst
maintaining a safety factor of 1 or above.

At this stage it was hypothesised that, as the current safety factors are only marginally
higher than one, the thickness would not be subject to a large change before the safety
factor dropped below 1. As such the first tests were set up to run thicknesses between
11.5mm and 12mm with 1mm intervals.

Figure 37: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank with 11.9mm thickness.

The above shows the safety factor for 11.9mm thickness, for full Von Mises stress,
displacement and safety factor analysis on thickness values of 11.5-11.9, see appendix A.

As can be seen in the results above even at 11.9mm the safety factor drops below one, it
was therefore decided that with this optimisation the thickness could not be reduced. This is
acceptable as the thickness of 12mm does not exceed the thickness of the original part.

24
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

12.0 Results & conclusion


In conclusion, the original crank has been optimised to carry a static point load of 2000N at
loading angles of 0 , 45 and 90 whilst maintaining a safety factor greater than or equal to
1. The comparison between the two parts is shown below:

Design Constraint Original part Optimised part Numerical Percentage


decrease decrease(%)(3
Sig.Fig)
Mass (kg) 0.246 0.255 -0.009 -3.66
Thickness (mm) 12 12 0 0.00
Maximum
Displacement (mm)
(3 Sig.Fig)
0 2.88 2.84 0.04 1.39
45 2.13 2.10 0.03 1.41
90 0.500 0.473 0.027 5.40
Maximum Von
Mises Stress (MPa)
(3 Sig.Fig)
0 302 271 31 10.3
45 344 273 71 20.6
90 314 268 46 14.7
Minimum Safety
factor (2 Sig.Fig)
0 0.91 1.02 -0.11 12.1
45 0.80 1.01 -0.21 26.3
90 0.87 1.03 -0.16 18.4
Table 3: Results table comparing the original part to the optimised part

25
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

13.0 Sources of error

There are several factors within the boundary conditions that will have had an effect on the
accuracy of the results. The first of these is the load applied to the crank. As mentioned
previously there are suggestions from several community sources that state a force of
1200N would be more appropriate but that no directed research could be found to confirm
this. As such further analysis could be done into how much force is applied by the rider at
different crank positions. This could be done by attaching a force plate to the pedal and
measuring the force against the position of the cranks.

If further research confirms that a lower force is applied by the rider the design could be
further optimised with regards to the size of the cut-out geometry and the thickness of the
crank. This would have a large effect on the current numerical output of this analysis
however the distribution of load would remain the same as the load would be applied at the
same point with the same constraints.

For higher result accuracy a dynamic study would be necessary as the force applied by the
rider will not be constant.

There were also inaccuracies in the mesh. Whilst Inventor gave a convergence rating of 0%
the mesh could still be further refined in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of the
results.

14.0 References
Corrected Data for Carbon Fibre (graph), Tensile Test Experiment. Michigan Tech. Available
from: http://www.mtu.edu/materials/k12/experiments/tensile/ (accessed on: 18/05/2017)

15.0 List of Figures


Figure 1: Boundary constraints on bicycle crank....................................................................4
Figure 2: Different crank positions shown in degrees from the horizontal for analysis............4
Figure 3: Initial mesh and convergence results using default settings....................................5
Figure 4: Mesh and Convergence Rate at 5 H refinements....................................................6
Figure 5: Mesh and Convergence Rate at 10 H refinements..................................................6
Figure 6: Faceting around cylindrical geometry......................................................................7
Figure 7: Refined mesh using local mesh control...................................................................7
Figure 8: Corrected data for Carbon Fibre (Tensile Test Experiment, no date).......................8
Figure 9: 0Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank..............................9
Figure 10: 0Crank position displacement simulation on original crank................................10
Figure 11: 0Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank..................................10
Figure 12: Load vector component calculation for 45 from the horizontal............................11
Figure 13: 45Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank........................12
Figure 14: 45Crank position displacement simulation on original crank..............................12
Figure 15: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank................................13
Figure 16: 90Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on original crank........................13
Figure 17: 90Crank position displacement simulation on original crank..............................14
Figure 18: 90Crank position safety factor simulation on original crank................................14

26
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Figure 19: Crank with original design optimisations removed...............................................15


Figure 20:: 45 load angle safety factor simulation with original design optimisations
removed............................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 21: 45 load angle stress simulation with original design optimisations removed......16
Figure 22: Shape generator settings....................................................................................16
Figure 23: Superimposed shape generator results...............................................................17
Figure 24: Optimisation based on shape generator results..................................................17
Figure 25: 45 load angle stress simulation on shape generator optimisation......................18
Figure 26: Optimisation with material removed from right bolt holes....................................19
Figure 27: Mesh view on optimised part with convergence rating.........................................20
Figure 28: 45Crank position Von Mises Stress simulation on optimised crank....................20
Figure 29: 45Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank..........................20
Figure 30: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank............................21
Figure 31: 0Crank position Von Mises stress simulation on optimised crank......................21
Figure 32: 0Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank............................22
Figure 33: 0Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank..............................22
Figure 34: 90Crank position Von Mises stress simulation on optimised crank....................23
Figure 35: 90Crank position displacement simulation on optimised crank..........................23
Figure 36: 90Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank............................23
Figure 37: 45Crank position safety factor simulation on optimised crank with 11.9mm
thickness.............................................................................................................................. 24

16.0 Appendices

Appendix A- 1: 45 load angle analysis on optimised design with 11.9mm thickness

27
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix A- 2: 45 load angle analysis on optimised design with 11.8mm thickness

28
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix A- 3: 45 load angle analysis on optimised design with 11.7mm thickness

29
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

30
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix A- 4: 45 load angle analysis on optimised design with 11.6mm thickness

31
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix A- 5: 45 load angle analysis on optimised design with 11.5mm thickness

Appendix B 1: 45 load angle Safety Factor analysis on original design made from
aluminium 6061

32
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix B 2: 45 load angle Safety Factor analysis on original design made from mild
steel

Appendix B 3: 45 load angle Safety Factor analysis on original design made from
Titanium

33
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix B 4: 45 load angle Safety Factor analysis on original design made from Carbon
Fibre (CFRP)

34
London South Bank University Jonathan Davis

Appendix C: Engineering drawing of original crank

35