With the model changed to an “N” configuration, the maximum stress results are tabulated below, with plots of element numbers and the end-to-end stresses of the top surface following.
The N diagonal was connected to the same point (node) as the endpoints of the bottom trailing arms as a matter of convenience. In real life they would be located separately but nearby. The results would not be much different. Since the N configuration does not supply anti-roll capability by itself, a rudimentary anti-roll bar and links were added. The arms and crossbar are (arbitrarily) of the same 1.25” dia, .125 wall tubing. (The unshown “axle” connects the aft ends of the upper links to the lower links.)
As can be seen, the links and shanks now have much lower stress levels and the higher stresses, due to bending in the arms, are in the anti-roll assembly, where they can be more easily managed. The diagonal, element 24, in this case is in compression (1384 lb/3782 psi) The diagonal shanks, 13 and 14, at 7598 psi are carrying the same load, and are much improved over the shank situation of the previous X solutions.
Regarding John Burk’s last comment--I agree that the four points (pivots) at the axle, for instance, will, in general, travel out-of-plane with uneven suspension travel side to side. However, given the limited travel likely to be allowed and the even more limited roll travel likely to be allowed, the mismatch may well be taken up by the slop in the system, elasticity in the system, or some designed-in elasticity.
ELEM VMX
1 2456.0
2 2456.0
3 666.86
4 666.86
5 661.48
6 661.48
7 661.31
8 661.31
9 1705.6
10 463.09
11 459.35
12 459.20
13 7598.5
14 7598.5
15 14353.
16 12423.
17 14351.
22 801.44
23 799.68
24 3782.2
MAXIMUM VALUES
ELEM 15 2
VALUE 14353. 2456.0
