Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Reply
Author: Subject: Triangulation
andyps

posted on 13/12/05 at 01:00 PM Reply With Quote
Triangulation

Hopefully will make a start on the triangulation this weekend and was contemplating the best way to cut the ends of the tubes. The options seem to be as below, is any one of them preferable? My own thought is that A would be best, but most complex. If it makes any difference to the answer, my choice is to double triangulate (making a cross) using 13mm square rather than the usual single diagonal round section. Rescued attachment triangulation.jpg
Rescued attachment triangulation.jpg






Andy

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Dieguez

posted on 13/12/05 at 02:33 PM Reply With Quote
triangulation

The A option is the best.

Dieguez

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Johnathan

posted on 13/12/05 at 03:56 PM Reply With Quote
A is the best, and makes more sense ...

Why make a cross though? Your not really going to need it, and will make your chassis heavier. Once you have a tube welded properly and securely inside any of the square /rectangular shapes on your space frame, it will lock it up and strengthen it anyway.

Seems like a waste to me





www.LogicalTuning.com

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
mark chandler

posted on 13/12/05 at 04:14 PM Reply With Quote
'A' is best, 'C' passes MSA roll bar design specs, 'B' does not !.

Regards Mark

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
andyps

posted on 13/12/05 at 05:15 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Johnathan
A is the best, and makes more sense ...

Why make a cross though? Your not really going to need it, and will make your chassis heavier. Once you have a tube welded properly and securely inside any of the square /rectangular shapes on your space frame, it will lock it up and strengthen it anyway.

Seems like a waste to me


Mainly because I like the idea of it and think it should look good. It has been done before - Mark Allanson did it, but I don't know why he chose that.

Weight increase shouldn't be too much though.





Andy

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
JoelP

posted on 13/12/05 at 07:28 PM Reply With Quote
ditto 'A', with load spreading fillets if you really want to get carried away!






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
mike4444244

posted on 13/12/05 at 07:33 PM Reply With Quote
hi
the round bar is used for the triangulation because its cross section makes it more resistant to side impact, on the chassis this is the triangulation down each side, box section will deform much easier on side impact,
HTH
Mike





110 Defender

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
andyps

posted on 13/12/05 at 11:12 PM Reply With Quote
Is it weaker even if I fully weld the point at which the two tubes cross? I would have thought that would create a kind of net effect which can be pretty strong.





Andy

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Nisseven

posted on 14/12/05 at 10:19 AM Reply With Quote
I'm not an expert but I was told by someone who should be that the tubes whether round or square are much stronger in tension than compression. It is just as good to go in one direction only so long as you put the tube so that the load causes it to be in tension.
Bruce

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
andyps

posted on 14/12/05 at 11:16 AM Reply With Quote
On that principal, if you have a rectangle with a cross in it, for a load applied to any corner one of the cross tubes would be in tension and the other in compression so would you have the best of both worlds?





Andy

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
02GF74

posted on 14/12/05 at 11:40 AM Reply With Quote
without doubt A is the stongest.

What profile of tubing are you welding to what? i..e. round tube to round tube or square section tube?

If you are welding round tubes, there is a program that by entering diameters, angles, etc: prints on paper the fishmouth profile you need. You cut the paper and stick it on your tube then cut the notch in the metal. Now someone is going to ask where to find this program........

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
iank

posted on 14/12/05 at 12:22 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
...
If you are welding round tubes, there is a program that by entering diameters, angles, etc: prints on paper the fishmouth profile you need. You cut the paper and stick it on your tube then cut the notch in the metal. Now someone is going to ask where to find this program........


There is one here (along with lots of other useful bits and bobs):
http://locost7.info/mirror/tools.php in TubeMitre.zip (never tried it myself though)

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
andyps

posted on 14/12/05 at 12:56 PM Reply With Quote
So far it is all square section tubing. The round comes later for a few other bits.





Andy

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
britishtrident

posted on 14/12/05 at 01:08 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
without doubt A is the stongest.

What profile of tubing are you welding to what? i..e. round tube to round tube or square section tube?

If you are welding round tubes, there is a program that by entering diameters, angles, etc: prints on paper the fishmouth profile you need. You cut the paper and stick it on your tube then cut the notch in the metal. Now someone is going to ask where to find this program........


"A" introduces a nasty triaxial stress system --- designing 3 welds to meet gives bad fracture mechanics avoid where possible.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Mark Allanson

posted on 14/12/05 at 10:10 PM Reply With Quote
Triaxial stress systems were yet to be invented when I did my apprentiship!

The theory taught in the 1980's was that a single stress point was used to line up the tubes. The bisected lines are on the centreline of the horizontal tube and the centreline of the vertical tube, and the triangulation would be added so it 'points' to the cross in the 2 lines, so A is the nearest to the ideal. It also adds to the bracing of the 2 other tubes.


[Edited on 15/12/05 by Mark Allanson]





If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
clbarclay

posted on 15/12/05 at 10:38 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mike4444244
hi
the round bar is used for the triangulation because its cross section makes it more resistant to side impact, on the chassis this is the triangulation down each side, box section will deform much easier on side impact,
HTH
Mike



????

Unless i've miss under stood the reasons for what your saying, they teach the opposite when calculating bending stresses at uni.

Square section RHS is stronger in bending (higher second moment of area) compared to round tube of the same mass per meter, not diameter.

In bending square sections have a greater max bening stress, but round sections can withstand higher (margianly) max torque.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
02GF74

posted on 16/12/05 at 09:52 AM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by clbarclay

Square section RHS is stronger in bending (higher second moment of area) compared to round tube of the same mass per meter, not diameter.




is that right? I don't believe it. The strongest shape for the same mass per meter has to be round surely? Millions of years of evloution shows that animal bone cross sections are round not square.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
britishtrident

posted on 16/12/05 at 10:40 AM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by clbarclay
snip


????

Unless i've miss under stood the reasons for what your saying, they teach the opposite when calculating bending stresses at uni.

Square section RHS is stronger in bending (higher second moment of area) compared to round tube of the same mass per meter, not diameter.

In bending square sections have a greater max bening stress, but round sections can withstand higher (margianly) max torque.


You misunderstood for a framed structure round tube is more efficient per unit mass.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
clbarclay

posted on 16/12/05 at 06:18 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
You misunderstood for a framed structure round tube is more efficient per unit mass.


Is that to do with energy absorbtion then, rather than the bending moments?






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
MikeRJ

posted on 17/12/05 at 10:23 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by clbarclay
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
You misunderstood for a framed structure round tube is more efficient per unit mass.


Is that to do with energy absorbtion then, rather than the bending moments?


No, if you think about it, for the same mass per unit length (assuming the same gauge materal), a round cross section will have a larger diameter than square and hence stronger in bending.

For the case where the round tubes diameter = distance accross flats of the square section, the latter will be the heaviest and strongest.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
gazza285

posted on 17/12/05 at 10:32 PM Reply With Quote
Not forgetting that square section is only strong in two planes, apply a force at 45 degrees to a flat section and it will collapse with much less force.





DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
birdii

posted on 20/12/05 at 08:45 AM Reply With Quote
If using option A is it better to weld the two tubes in the corner then grind the weld and then fit the triangulation, or should the triangulation be fitted without welding the corner that it will be covering?
This isn't a problem with option B or C because non of the joints are covered by the triangulation.
So weld and grind, or dont weld just fit the triangulation over the joint?
Cheers.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
JoelP

posted on 20/12/05 at 09:17 AM Reply With Quote
weld and dont grind. You might have to take a little top and bottom, but in the middle it will fit snugly inside the tube. If a resulting angle ends up too tight to weld inside, take a wedge of tube and weld it over it.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Alan B

posted on 20/12/05 at 02:18 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
Triaxial stress systems were yet to be invented when I did my apprentiship!

The theory taught in the 1980's was that a single stress point was used to line up the tubes. The bisected lines are on the centreline of the horizontal tube and the centreline of the vertical tube, and the triangulation would be added so it 'points' to the cross in the 2 lines, so A is the nearest to the ideal. It also adds to the bracing of the 2 other tubes.


[Edited on 15/12/05 by Mark Allanson]


Bingo...intersecting centre lines is the key....

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
JoelP

posted on 20/12/05 at 03:33 PM Reply With Quote
ive been spending hours recently in the garage grinding 50x50x3 square tubes to fit in style A, and coincidentally, it is the centrelines that line up! I'll chuck up a picture soon, as it will make a nice example being in large tube. Plus you can all ridicule my welding






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Reply


go to top






Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content © 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [© 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.