reinforcements cassone obliqui

[Il_Gibernauta]

Good morning.
I press that I am new to the forum and so I could post in the wrong section. Anyway, I'd like to get out of curiosity. Why are the reinforcements on the side walls both of the scarrabile and of the tipperable ones (for quarry construction applications) used on the trucks often oblique? Another thing I've noticed is that oblique reinforcements are "oriented" from below to top in the vehicle's direction.
I do not understand if you do to limit the maximum distance between two reinforcements to equal size and number of reinforcements compared to a cassone with vertical reinforcements or if you do to limit the stresses on reinforcements themselves in front of loads that would tend to bend the side wall frame in the direction of march of the vehicle. I think, for example, the case where the cassone finds itself loaded and completely overturned. in that case much of the load would be supported by the back vertical wall of the cassone.

 

[Vittorio]

Why are the reinforcements on the side walls both of the scarrabile and of the tipperable ones (for quarry construction applications) used on the trucks often oblique?

I believe to increase the cassone resistance to the side forces when the truck is in the curve and the load tends to move outside.
oblique reinforcements help to counter this force by distributing it evenly

 

[Il_Gibernauta]

I believe to increase the cassone resistance to the side forces when the truck is in the curve and the load tends to move outside.
oblique reinforcements help to counter this force by distributing it evenly

Thank you very much for the answer!!! For me however, it is not clear why the forces are redistributed and also why on all the dumps I have seen the reinforcements are always "oriented" from the bottom to the top in the direction of the vehicle.

 

[DrBarde]

Thank you very much for the answer!!! For me however, it is not clear why the forces are redistributed and also why on all the dumps I have seen the reinforcements are always "oriented" from the bottom to the top in the direction of the vehicle.

If I'm wrong, you'll pay me.

in my opinion it serves because if you enter "rights" the forces agents are perpendicular and therefore the triangle of forces has a component nothing. tilting it you have an extra component (that parallel to the ground in my head) that goes to act in case of need.

 

[PIETRO2002]

If I'm wrong, you'll pay me.

in my opinion it serves because if you enter "rights" the forces agents are perpendicular and therefore the triangle of forces has a component nothing. tilting it you have an extra component (that parallel to the ground in my head) that goes to act in case of need.

a sort of rhetorical travature.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

so it seems that the truck goes faster!

 

[Cadinpiedi]

beyond the joke of spirit, it seems that it is an aesthetic choice. I did a test with a sheet having the same material, constraints and load but different arrangement of reinforcements, having the optimal solution is the first with equally distributed areas.- the second study has 20° oriented reinforcements, so they increase the two extreme areas that are penalized, then I tried to tighten them almost equalizing the areas, but the result does not change, is better the primary solution even if less glamorous.

 

[Vittorio]

@ cadinpiedi very interesting thanks

 

[meccanicamg]

In fact I would have responded that the first did so and then all the others copied them the same as monkeys, without making calculations or analysis.

 

[DrBarde]

In fact I would have responded that the first did so and then all the others copied them the same as monkeys, without making calculations or analysis.

it is said to take the cue s

 

[meccanicamg]

it is said to take the cue s

hahahaha however you have to know how to copy...relaborate.... worse...hem improve re

 

[Vittorio]

bho.. I know
I don't want to question the calculations made because I don't have the ability.
but it seems that the choice is not so reductive and tied to the aesthetic aspect.
it would seem that at full load the cassone exerts a force downwards.
This force tends to deform the cassone by bending it downwards and it would seem that oblique reinforcements are better than vertical reinforcements.
I'll throw it there.
But the direction in the direction of travel could be that in the phase of acceleration the load tends to slip back and the oblique reinforcements, in the back zone, are more effective?

 

[Peppe]

Perhaps oblique reinforcements serve to counter the force that is generated during the dumping of the cassone from the truck. having present the procedure of the exhaust, the cassone rests on the rear wheels and the hook rotating the discharge to the ground.

 

[Il_Gibernauta]

Thank you all for your answers and in particular @ cadinpiedi for simulation. It's very interesting.
I believe that there is a reason why reinforcements are inclined in some cases.
by making a simple calculation it is found that the minimum distance between two inclined reinforcements is greater than that between two straight reinforcements at equal number of reinforcements, dimensions of the wall of the cassone and size of reinforcements. This makes me think that extending the maximum pressure at the most distant point between two reinforcements is greater if the reinforcements are inclined. I think, as he says, @peppe the inclination of reinforcements is desired for reasons of structural resistance during the phases of discharging and tipping of the cassone.
Perhaps the orientation from the bottom to the top in the direction of gearing of the vehicle serves to make the reinforcements to traction in the operations of discarding and overturning of the cassone and avoid to stress the reinforcements to the tip load.