Hey guys, just some pretty pictures. Work is a engineering consultancy firm, which means I go through periods of being flat out when we win work, to periods of dead quiet when we lose some bids in a row.
In the quiet times I played around with designing some rocksliders for the Patrol (not building them as I found a place that make good ones at a good price - I don't know how to weld anyway).
Compared the difference between RHS and CHS for the main/inner slider, used a bunch of different thicknesses/grade and impact locations.
Seeing rockslider design guides on forums, I noticed so many of them talk about loads 'midspan' and stating RHS was better because of it's geometry to resist bending, but they never had any mention about bearing load effects and impacts at the forward or rear end of the slider, such as driving a wheel over a rock and dropping onto said rock once the wheel is past, which causes most of the load to only go through one mount. I believed this would be the worst case and set out to see what it took to design to this impact.
From memory it took an OD88.9 CHS about 6mm thick for no damage, of course that means the chassis is now at risk and you lose clearance and add weight, ended up settling on OD60.3 with 2.9mm thickness as a balance. A 75x50x4 RHS was at a similar level to the CHS, but again less clearance, more weight, because the load is not pure bending, the bearing and twisting effects were causing the corners of lower thickness RHS to be overloaded compared to the 2.9mm thick CHS which spread the load more evenly around its shape.
Here are a few pictures showing the results. Was done a while ago, looking back at it now, I realise the RHS should actually be a higher grade than the CHS, the results would still be the same values, but the RHS scale should go up to 450, not 350 MPa. Would mean a 75x50x3 would be similar to the OD60.3x2.9 CHS. Although it would still be less clearance and more weight.
One of the items that needed a fair bit of attention was the forward mount itself, initialy started off just as an L bracket, but required bracing, turned out very similar to what ARB do, guess there is a reason their stuff is expensive, it's properly engineered using FEA, which takes considerable time.