Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a bicycle crank arm demonstrator via Industry 4.0 principles for sustainable and cost-effective manufacturing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sports Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development and validation of an original aluminum bicycle crank arm design is presented with an emphasis on design for manufacturing and cost-efficiency via Industry 4.0 principles. The facets of Industry 4.0 that were utilized in this work include the development of a predictive technical cost model, real-time data acquisition from the processing equipment, as well as intentional design for manufacturability. Two crank arm designs were manufactured and tested in a custom mechanical testing jig. The adjustable apparatus was used to test the crank arms in multiple loading cases realistic to those experienced during a typical service life, in addition to testing the load case defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Metrology was then conducted of all crank arms to assess the part deformation after mechanical testing. A predictive technical cost model was also developed of the entire design and manufacturing process that allows for factors such as cycle time, energy consumption, and production efficiency to be utilized to maximize sustainability in the manufacturing process. The crank arms presented met the ISO specifications for crank arm safety, and showed comparable performance to a commercial aluminum crank arm. This successful product development cycle can be utilized in future research to adopt different material systems into the process for increased sustainability or performance or both, as well as to serve as a demonstrator of the implementation of next-generation manufacturing principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang L, Törngren M, Onori M (2015) Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 37:517–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ghobakhloo M (2020) Industry 4.0, digitalization, and opportunities for sustainability. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dalenogare L, Benitez G, Ayala N (2018) The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. Int J Prod Econ 204:383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Culot G, Nassimbeni G, Orzes G, Sartor M (2020) Behind the definition of Industry 4.0: analysis and open questions. Int J Prod Econ 226:107617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gonzalez H, Hull M (1989) Multivariable optimization of cycling biomechanics. J Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(89)90217-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ismail A, Na G, Koo B (2020) Topology and response surface optimization of a bicycle crank arm with multiple load cases. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10062201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Balbinot A, Milani C, Nascimento JSB (2014) A new crank arm-based load cell for the 3D analysis of the force applied by a cyclist. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s141222921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gutiérrez-Moizant R, Ramírez-Berasategui M, Calvo J, Álvarez Caldas C (2020) Validation and improvement of a bicycle crank arm based in numerical simulation and uncertainty quantification. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Oosterhuis H (1989) Cycling, modernity and national culture. Soc Hist 41:233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2016.1180897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trek (2021) Sustainability report and corporate commitment. https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/sustainability/. Accessed 22 Mar 2022

  11. ISO (2014) Cycles-safety requirements for bicycles—part 3: common test methods. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 4210-3:2014. https://www.iso.org/standard/59910.html Accessed 7 August 2021

  12. ISO (2014) Cycles-safety requirements for bicycles—part 8: pedal and drive system test methods. International Organization for Standardization 4210-8:2014. https://www.iso.org/standard/59915.html Accessed 7 August 2021

  13. EU (2005) Racing bicycles—safety requirements and test methods. European Standard 14781:2005

  14. Chamberlain M, Miller J, Heflin D, Dowd T, Rhim J, Akturk I, Coffing J, Mansson JA (2022) Cycling and sustainability: development of a recycled carbon fiber (rcf) crankset demonstrator. In: International sports engineering conference (ISEA) conference Proceedings

  15. McCullough R, Jordon J, Allison P, Rushing T, Garcia L (2019) Fatigue crack nucleation and small crack growth in an extruded 6061 aluminum alloy. Int J Fatigue. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Itoh T, Nakata T, Sakane M, Ohnami M (1999) Nonproportional low cycle fatigue of 6061 aluminum alloy under 14 strain paths. Eur Struct Integr Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-1369(99)80006-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Glebes R, Dustin J, Mansson JA (2019) Technical cost modeling methodology for novel manufacturing. SAMPE 2019-Charlotte, NC, May 2019

  18. Wakeman MD, Månson JA (2005) Cost analysis. In: Design and manufacture of textile composites. Woodhead Publishing. 364–404. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845690823.364

  19. Turner TA, Harper LT, Warrior NA, Rudd CD (2008) Low-cost carbon-fibre-based automotive body panel systems: a performance and manufacturing cost comparison. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D J Automob Eng 222(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544070JAUTO406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baumers M, Holweg M (2016) Cost impact of the risk of build failure in laser sintering. In: 2016 international solid freeform fabrication symposium

  21. Baumers M, Holweg M (2019) On the economics of additive manufacturing: experimental findings. J Oper Manag 65(8):794–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gutowski T, Hoult D, Dillon G, Neoh ET, Muter S, Kim E, Tse M (1994) Development of a theoretical cost model for advanced composite fabrication. Compos Manuf 5(4):231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-7143(94)90138-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bader MG (2002) Selection of composite materials and manufacturing routes for cost-effective performance. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 33(7):913–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-835X(02)00044-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. LeBlanc DJ (1976) Advanced composite cost estimating manual. Northrop Corporation, Aircraft Division, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ruffo M, Tuck C, Hague R (2006) Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing–laser sintering production for low to medium volumes. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 220(9):1417–1427. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ilcewicz L, Ashforth C (2017) Scaling crucial to integrated product development of composite airframe structures. Compr Compos Mater II:26–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10314-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Glebes RJ, Dustin JS, Mansson JAE (2019) Technical cost modeling methodology for novel manufacturing. SAMPE 2019—Charlotte, NC

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express gratitude towards the Ray Ewry Sports Engineering Center (RESEC) at Purdue University, as well as the Indiana Next Generation Manufacturing Competitiveness Center (IN-MaC) for providing the financial support for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, Ray Ewry Sports Engineering Center, 1105 Endeavour Drive, Suite 400, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Morgan Chamberlain, Justin Miller, Teal Dowd, Jung Soo Rhim, Diana Heflin, Ilke Akturk & Jan-Anders Mansson

  2. Indiana Next Generation Manufacturing Competitiveness Center, 1105 Endeavour Drive, Suite 400, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Jacob Coffing, Michael Fassnacht & Jan-Anders Mansson

Authors
  1. Morgan Chamberlain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teal Dowd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jung Soo Rhim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Diana Heflin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ilke Akturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jacob Coffing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Fassnacht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jan-Anders Mansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Anders Mansson.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided by the Ray Ewry Sports Engineering Center (RESEC) at Purdue University, as well as the Indiana Next Generation Manufacturing Competitiveness Center (IN-MaC).

Conflict of interest

Professor Jan-Anders Mansson served as a guest editor for the Topical Collection on The Engineering of Sport 14 and he was not involved in the blind peer review process of this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is a part of a Topical Collection in Sports Engineering on The Engineering of Sport 14 Conference held at Purdue University USA, edited by Dr Hugo Espinosa, Steven Shade, Dr Kim Blair and Professor Jan-Anders Månsson.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chamberlain, M., Miller, J., Dowd, T. et al. Development of a bicycle crank arm demonstrator via Industry 4.0 principles for sustainable and cost-effective manufacturing. Sports Eng 26, 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-022-00394-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-022-00394-1

Search

Navigation