ME 43 Senior Design Project

Final Design Report

Elevated Bike Storage for

Bray Lab

Josh Brown
Parker Heyl
Kevin OBrien
Trevor Vassallo
December 19th, 2016

Table of Contents
Executive Summary

iii

Section 1: Problem Details

Problem Background
Model of Bray Laboratory
Problem Statement

1
1
1
2

Section 2: Concept Ideation/Evaluation

Design Requirements
Weighted Matrix
Ideation Approach
Idea Screening
Existing Products
Benchmarking Table

2
2
3
4
6
7
8

Section 3: Final Design Choice

Model of Pursued Concept
Construction and Testing
Technical Analysis

9
9
9
12

Section 4: Wrap-Up
Conclusion
Future Work
Acknowledgements
Works Cited

12
12
14
15
15

ii

Executive Summary
For faculty and students who work in Bray Lab at Tufts University, bicycles are a
common mode of transportation. However, the building has no designated space in which to
store bikes, and the nearest bike rack is not only a two-minute walk away, but is completely
uncovered, leaving bicycles subject to damage from weather. In providing a solution to this
problem, the goal was to design a storage device that could be built and installed in Bray
without obstructing the activities which occur in the same space. The design of the elevated
bicycle storage solution was a process that took several steps and over three months to bring
from concept to reality.
The design process began with assessing user needs and, from those needs, defining
technical requirements to be pursued in the final product. The requirements were weighted
against the needs to determine the most important aspects of the design by using a weighted
matrix.
From there, the ideation process began. Although it began as a somewhat free-form
procedure, it eventually became more focused once the group started deciding on the most
practical and effective designs to pursue. Whole concepts were weighted against each other
and, once the cable lift was decided to be the best concept, different types of components that
could be used in the cable lift system were compared (motorized vs. hand operated and wall
mount vs. beam mount). The final step of the ideation process consisted of comparing the
proposed design with existing products that provided the same solution. While some existing
products actually earned a higher score in the comparison matrix, these products were not
compatible with the precise set of needs required for this design (i.e., using vertical space, no
manual lifting of the bike, etc.).
Next, the construction phase began. The final prototype consisted of two support
triangles mounted to the wall, connected by a single cross beam. Attached to this cross beam
were two sets of pulleys with hooks attached to the accompanying rope. To secure the bike to
the system, one set of hooks attached to the handlebars and the other set attached to the
underside of the bike seat. The excess rope could then easily be pulled downward to lift the
bike. A locking mechanism also mounted on the crossbar ensured that the rope would not slip
while it is not being pulled by the user, thus ensuring both bike and user safety.
To further analyze the system, finite element analysis was performed to observe the
stresses experienced by different piece of the device. The system showed that there was no
danger of the assembly failing, as the response to a load of thirty-five pounds (about onehundred and sixty Newtons) was a stress of about one-hundredth of a psi throughout the
various beams, an extremely small amount of pressure that would in no way endanger or cause
the system to break.
Due to the bicycle racks ability to consistently lift a bike and store it out of reach of users
on the ground, the solution was deemed a success. However, the space required for this

iii

system is more than can be provided in the space provided in Bray, since a bicycle-sized area
of floor space must be available for loading and unloading the bikes. The main reason for this
was the workbench taking up an entire wall. If it were to be moved, it would become possible to
extend the rack further off the wall, allowing for more than one bicycle to be stored at a time,
thus highly increasing the modularity and usefulness of the product. Also, the addition of the
aforementioned hand crank would increase mechanical advantage and also decrease the speed
of the pulleys when raising/lifting the bike, thus further increasing the stability of bicycles during
use of the system.

iv

Section 1: Problem Details

Problem Background
Many people use bicycles as their main mode of transportation around the Tufts campus.
At nearly every building on campus, there is a rack or some other designated space for bicycle
storage, however at Bray Lab there is nothing of the sort. Bike users have resorted to leaving their
bikes either outside, in the back hallway, or in the utilities closet. This is problematic because it
introduces a fire hazard when the bicycles block the garage door, make it difficult for people to
work in that area, and prevent easy access to the supply closet. However, Bray Lab does have
very high ceilings which presented an opportunity to utilize that space to solve the bike storage
problem.
Model of Bray Laboratory
SolidWorks was used to create models of the space given to work with in Bray. This was
done so that the team could scope out different spots to put a storage device, and have a CAD
model with which to analyze the final design choice.

Figure 1: CAD Model of Available Space in Bray Laboratory

As seen in Figure 1 above, important features were modeled to better define the usable
space. The walls and beam were potential mounting points while light fixtures and switches were
obstacles that needed to be worked around.

Problem Statement
The problem being addressed is the lack of storage space for bicycles in Bray Laboratory.
Bikes are currently being stored improperly and the goal is to utilize the abundance of overhead
space in Bray to create a bike rack that will store them properly and keep them out of the way.
This will provide a safe, easy to use, and secure place for cyclists to keep their bikes while in
Bray.

Section 2: Concept Ideation/Evaluation

Design Requirements
User needs were gathered by conducting interviews with several potential users of our
product including Ben Ginden, Professor Douglas Matson, Josh Brown, and Parker Heyl. These
needs were then ranked by the design team, and were then given weights on a scale of 1 to 5 (5
being most important to users). With these needs in mind, requirements were developed within
the categories of functional, technical, economic, and social requirements. A description of each
requirement as well as a target metric is listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Table of Requirements
Functional

Technical

Name

Description

Target

1. Load

Max weight system can lift

up to 17-23 kg

2. Capacity

Number of bikes that can be stored

4-6 bikes

3. Stability

Bikes are properly constrained

No swinging or swaying

4. Clearance

Bike height above floor

7ft at lowest point

5. Protection

How the system protects the bike

No damage is done to any bike

6. Time to store

Length of time to store the bike

Under 60 seconds

7. Time to retrieve

Length of time to remove the bike

Under 60 seconds

8. Bike
Compatibility

Types of bike that system can store

All bikes

9. Maintenance

Interval between maintenance operation Can go two years between checkups

10. Facilities

Approval of Tufts Facilities

Facilities approves the project

11. Safety
Regulations

Adherence to safety regulations

Meets all regulations

12. Ease of
Maintenance

Knowledge required to perform

maintenance

Anyone can maintain it

Economic

Social

13. Cost

Cost to build the system

Under $400

14. Maintenance
Cost

Cost to maintain the system

Under $50 a year

15. Force to
Operate

Force the user must exert to store their

bike

Less than 20 pounds of force to

operate system

16. Ease of Use

Knowledge required to operate

Minimal instructions are required

17. Safe to Use

Risk of harming a user

Bikes will never fall to injure

Weighted Matrix
A weighted matrix was then created (see Table 2 below) to identify the most important
requirements. Each requirement was evaluated against each need on a scale ranging from -5 to
5. A high positive number represents that the requirement is strongly affected by the need in a
positive way and a high negative number represents a strongly negative correlation. A weighted
sum of each column showed which requirements were most affected by the needs. Seen
highlighted as green in the table; clearance, time to retrieve, and capacity were determined to be
the most important requirements. The least important requirements (highlighted in red) were cost,
maintenance cost, and capacity. These results help show which requirements are most important
to consider with both negative and positive correlations to the user needs.
Table 2: Weighted Matrix of Needs and Requirements

Ideation Approach
Solutions to the problem were developed using multiple brainstorming techniques. The
first method used was a memory mind map which is shown in Figure 2 below. Branches were
created for different aspects of the problem, each having various solutions listed. The goal of this
exercise was to develop a broad spectrum of solutions and to begin identifying which aspects of
the project needed to be considered.

Figure 2: Memory Mind Map

Continuing from the mind map, the problem was broken down into specific key
components that would have to be considered for every solution. These were chosen to be lifting,
securing, and guiding. Figure 3 shows some of the potential solutions that were thought of to
accomplish each of these tasks. Scalability and modularity were also kept in mind as the goal was
to create a solution that could be replicated to store higher quantities of bikes.

Figure 3: Component Ideation

Component solutions were then mixed and matched as well as combined with ideas
from the mind map to create whole concept solutions. Figure 4 shows sketches of each of these
ideas.

Figure 4: Whole Concept Sketches

Idea Screening
Once multiple potential concepts had been discussed, a matrix was created to assess
how each of these ideas stacked up against the baseline solution, which was a simple manually
operated pulley lift in which the cable is tied off on a hook once the bike has been lifted. Each
design was rated on each factor with either a -1, 0, or 1. A -1 indicates a worse performance than
the baseline, a zero indicates equal performance as the baseline, and a score of 1 indicates a
better performance than the baseline. Factors highlighted in red indicated that the performance
was the same for that factor for each design, and therefore was not considered when deciding a
final concept. A sum of all the ratings was used to determine which concept would perform the
best, and the cable lift finished with the highest rating.
Table 3: Idea Screening Matrix

Next, two key factors were considered in the focused idea screening matrix: lifting
mechanism and mounting. The options for lifting were a motorized system or manual crank
operated system. The options for mounting were to either mount the system on the wall or on the
overhead beam. Again these options were compared to the baseline of a manually operated
pulley. Here a score from -2 to 2 was given to each requirement, with a high negative number
meaning that the configuration in question would perform significantly worse than the baseline
and a high positive number meaning that the configuration in question would perform significantly
better than the baseline. Rows highlighted in red indicate that the given requirement has the same
effect for each configuration, including the baseline. Summing all of these scores up, we found
the wall mounted system with a hand crank was the most optimal design.

Table 4: Focused Idea Screening Matrix

Baseline
Factor

Ideas

Manual Pulley

Wall Mount - Crank

Wall Mount - Motorized

Beam Mount - Crank

Beam Mount - Motorized

Max Load

Safety

-1

Maintenance

-1

-2

-1

-2

Speed of Use

Stability

Compatibility

Aesthetically Pleasing

Work to Operate

Easy to Understand

Ease of Manufacturing

-1

-2

-1

-2

Cost

-1

-2

-1

-2

Reliability

Compatible With Bray

Total

-1

Existing Products
Research was conducted to find existing products that solved similar bicycle storage
challenges. The vertical and horizontal rack solutions are common, clever ways of utilizing wall
space to store bikes, but involve lifting the bikes up manually, which can be difficult. The lever lift
is also a clever solution, but requires the ceiling to be low enough that the lift comes all the way
down to the ground when it is lowered. The retractable lift is a very unique method of raising bikes,
but requires a lot of floor space, as well as a lot of complex machinery that the budget given to
the team could not account for. In order to further compare these existing solutions to the tentative
design choice, a benchmarking table was made to compare specific aspects of each solution to
each other.

Figure 5: Pictures of Existing Solutions

Benchmarking Table
After researching existing solutions to the problem, a benchmarking table was created to
compare the teams design choice to other designs. Of the four existing concepts chosen, two of
them (horizontal rack and vertical rack) scored better than the baseline of the teams design
choice, but both involved the user having to lift the bike themselves to get it onto the rack, which
directly conflicted with the design specification of no manual lifting, as well as the need to use
overhead space. Keeping these important aspects in mind, the design choice of a wall mounted
rack with a crank was still the best option, even compared to existing solutions, and was chosen
to as the idea to move forward with.
Table 5: Benchmarking vs. Existing Products
Baseline
Factor

Existing Products

Wall Mount - Crank

Lever Lift

Horizontal Rack

Retractable Lift

Vertical Rack

Max Load

Safety

-1

Maintenance

-1

Speed of Use

Stability

Compatibility

Aesthetically Pleasing

-1

-1

Work to Operate

-1

-1

Easy to Understand

Ease of Manufacturing

-1

Cost

-1

Reliability

Compatible With Bray

-1

-1

-1

-1

Total

-2

Section 3: Final Design Choice

Model of Pursued Concept

Figure 6: Model of Bray Laboratory with Bicycle Storage Unit Installed

Construction and Testing

Once the final design choice was modeled, production could begin. To ensure the storage
rack would be securely fixed, holes were drilled through the eight inch-thick cinder block wall.
Each piece of the device was built ahead of time on the ground, in order to make installation
easier. Once the two outer support trusses and the main bar complete with pulley system were

built, the rack was ready to be installed. By Tufts safety code, students are not allowed to use
both the ladder and power tools necessary to drill these holes and install the rack, so faculty
members from Tufts Facilities had to come and assist. A specific day was picked to do the
installation, and two helpful employees came to install the rack according to our specifications.
Pictures of the rack being installed can be seen below:

Figure 7: Manny, an employee from Tufts Facilities, installing the frame

The picture on the left depicts the rack in the middle of the installation process. The bar
on the left has been bolted through the wall to support it, while the triangle on the right shows the
completed support triangle built off of the initial support bar. The picture on the right shows the
completely installed bicycle rack, complete with initial beam supports, support triangles, and the
cross-beam pulley-lifting system to be used to lift the bike.
Other aspects of the system not seen in the final picture above were also extremely
important to our final product. First, a hook had to be installed to wrap the excess rope around
while the bike was being stored. This was useful for two reasons: One, it allowed the rope to be
stored cleanly and efficiently, so as not to be in the way of other activities taking place in the space
in Bray. Two, it provided an extra layer of safety to prevent the bike from falling in case the autolocking device on the pulley system failed. Another important aspect of the system was the
manner in which the bolts secured the rack in place. These bolts (10 inches each) were threaded
through the wall and then secured on the other side with a thick, square metal plate (acting as a
washer) and a nut. A tennis ball was secured on one of the bolts that stuck out right above a
staircase so as to prevent people from hitting their head on it when walking up the stairs (the
remaining three bolts were at least 7 feet above the ground and thus out of dangers way). Pictures
of both of these implementations can be seen on the following page.

10

Figure 8: The Rope-storing Hook (left) and the Back of the Mounting System (right)
Once all of these pieces were built, the final rack was complete. The rack works in a fairly
simple manner, as described below:
1.) The two hooks are lowered using a string attached to the rightmost hook that hangs down to
floor level.
2.) Two hooks are hooked under the handlebars of the bike, while the two hook on the other
side are either hooked under the back of the seat or under a different beam on the back of the
bicycle (depends on the shape of the users bike).
3.) The lifting rope is pulled down by the user, unlocking the auto-locking mechanism on the
back of the pulley system and allowing the bike to be raised.
4.) Once the bike is raised all the way to the cross-beam of the rack, the user lets go of the
rope, which causes the auto-locking mechanism to lock into place, freezing the rope-pulley
system and allowing the bike to hang securely in the air (as seen in the rightmost picture below).
5.) The excess rope is tied around the wall hook as an added layer of safety, and the bike is
now securely in place on the wall, out of reach of students and out of the way of any activity
occurring in the space in Bray.

Figure 9: The Finished Rack (left), and a Stored Bicycle (right)

11

Technical Analysis
In order to analyze the device and ensure that it would not break under the stress of the
hanging bike, Finite Element Analysis was performed using SolidWorks. First, the device was
modeled by importing files of the parts used from McMaster Carr to get an extremely accurate
CAD representation of the device. An assembly was created (as seen in the picture below on the
left), and then the assembly was opened in SolidWorks Simulation. First, fixtures were added at
the points where the bolts were in the actual assembly so the device would behave appropriately
under a force. Gravity was added to the study, the appropriate material (Alloy Steel) was applied
to the beams, and an evenly distributed force of one-hundred and sixty Newtons (about thirty-six
pounds of force) was applied to the bottom beam to represent the weight of a bike. Considering
the average weight of a bicycle is between fifteen and twenty pounds, it was decided that thirtysix pounds was the absolute maximum case. If the device could support a bike that heavy, it
could likely support any bike.
The simulation was run, and it was seen that the highest stress experienced in any part of
the beam was about one-hundred Newtons per square meter, which is equal to one-hundred
Pascals of pressure (0.014 psi). This is an extremely small amount of pressure, showing that the
device is sturdy, and the added weight of a bike will not break or bend it. This gave evidence that
the device was safe to use, and testing could begin.

Figure 10: SolidWorks Model of Device and Finite Element Analysis of Simulated Bike Load

Section 4: Wrap-Up
Conclusion
Upon completing the installation of the bike rack, the user testing process began. The
securing hooks proved to be effective and easy to use, however their shape was not curved
enough. The hooks were more L-shaped instead of J-shaped which did not provide as secure of
an attachment to the bike as desired. That being said, the hooks used were able to consistently
hold the bike as it was lifted. The pulley system performed well, giving consistent results in lifting
and securing the bike. It took a manageable amount of force on the part of the user to lift the bike

12

at a safe speed. The locking device also performed well, even locking after a sudden release of
the rope by the user. However, in this situation, a sudden jolt could cause the bike to become
unhooked and fall. Potential solutions to this problem are discussed in the future work section.
As far as meeting the desired needs, the system succeeds to some extent with every
need, with the exception of a few. While the bike is consistently able to be lifted, it does rock a
fair amount, giving the illusion of the bikes instability on the system. Additionally, although a bike
is out of the way when in its stored position, the act of loading and unloading the bike still requires
ample floor space below the system. This is difficult to guarantee given the presence of the
workbench and student projects in the hallway. A section of floor space the size of an average
bike would have to be designated and clear to ensure easy loading and unloading of the bike.
Table 6: Table of Needs Met
Safe to use

Doesnt damage the bike

Bike is secure (doesnt rock)

Simple to understand and use

Uses space efficiently

Bike can be stored/removed quickly

Repeatable experience

Meets facilities regulations

Accepts all types of bikes

Accessibility (for those who cant lift their bike)

Good experience

Minimum maintenance required

Long product life

Resistant to horseplay

System is aesthetically pleasing

Compared to other products, the current prototype is more similar to the baseline manual
pulley than the proposed hand crank concept. There are slight differences in that the prototype
has the locking mechanism, where the baseline simply had a hook to tie down the excess rope.
This means the prototype is a slight improvement over the baseline system. Adding a crank to
the system is still possible providing it can work with the existing rope and there is an area on the
wall in which to mount it.

13

During the design and prototype process, it was proven that a bike storage system of this
caliber is feasible. The foundation for a consistent, safe, user friendly product was developed that
met the space constraints within Bray. The prototype has been put in place and, from here, some
refinement would make it a fully functional product.
Future Work
The prototype built in Bray was a proof of concept for utilizing the overhead space, but
there are multiple ways in which it could be refined to be a better product. First, as discussed
above, a crank could be added to provide an easier means of lifting the bike and handling excess
rope. A crank with a winch would provide mechanical advantage to make it significantly easier to
lift, while also reducing lifting speeds. This reduced speed would make the bike appear more
stable as it is being lifted, which would fulfill one of the needs that we failed to meet in this iteration.
The hooks that attach to the bike could also be improved to be more secure. They could
be bent more to form a better grasp on the handlebars and seat. A safety backup could be
implemented using Velcro to ensure the bicycle is held secure to the hooks and reduce the risk
of it falling. In addition, carabiners could be attached to the frame of the bike and tied off to the
supports overhead to provide a failsafe in case the bike comes off the hooks. These carabiners
would be lined with rubber or some other soft material that would prevent the bike from getting
scratched.
The prototype currently has room for one bike but could be modified to include more.
Given the promising results of our Finite Element Analysis, we know that the frame attached to
the wall is very secure, so the cantilever off the wall can easily be extended to provide space for
a greater number of bikes. Alternatively, extending the frame across the hallway to the half-wall
on would provide enough mounting room for three to four bicycles.
After testing the prototype, the practicality of using the overhead space in Bray to store
bikes came into question. While it was proven to be possible, there were many challenges with
the prototype such as ease of use, requiring floor space, and risk of misuse. Considering building
a standard bicycle rack outside of Bray as an alternative solution would meet most of the same
functionality as storing them elevated indoors, but in a simpler, more user-friendly way.

14

Figure 11: Mock-up of Alternative Bike Rack Directions

Acknowledgements
ME Department:
Tufts Facilities:
Bray Lab:

Gary Leisk, Douglas Matson, Pat Fennessy

Kenneth Person, Colin Simmons, Manny
Ben Ginden, Marya Schnedeker

Works Cited
John Angelico on September 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM. "Seoul Cycle Design Competition: the Sunn
Beam, Horsey & Green Cloud." Bay Bikers: The Bay Area's bicycle blog. N.p., 2010. Web. 16
Dec. 2016.
This source was used for the retractable bike lift product.

15

Makespace. "13 Beautiful Space-Saving Bike Racks For Every Bicycle Owner On Your Gift
List." MakeSpace Blog. N.p., 27 June 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
This source was used for the vertical rack existing product.
Reedy, Marie. "Wall mounted bike rack that allows you to swivel the bikes nearly flat against the
wall when not using--space saver for multi bike storage--we need this!" Pinterest. N.p., 2014.
Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
This source was used for the horizontal rack existing product.
Visan, Eduard. "42 Storage Ideas That Will Organize Your Entire House." Pinterest. N.p., 2015.
Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
This source was used for the lever lift existing product.
"Walter Robbs Callahan & Pierce Architects Named a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Business."
Camel City Dispatch. N.p., 2013. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
This source was used for the manual pulley existing product.

16