Author Topic: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?  (Read 43973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline doug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2012, 09:40:10 AM »
Not having witnessed the failures around LSR, I can only comment on SCCA cars.
The trend has been to go from 1/4" plates down to .080 min thickness (last GCR I had '09).
The issues I have seen are not the roll structure penetrating the foot, it is the foot tearing out the flooring under it. It is my understanding that the lesser material will deform and stay attached to the sheet steel without tearing.

IMHO, the materials used are secondary to the design and attachment of cage. The last car I caged, Miata open top had 20 points of attachment to the car. Of course, it was to help stiffen the chassis so it picked up the front suspension points and the rear sub frame mounts. Also, because it is a small car the cage mounted not on the floor, but on top of the rocker panel structures. All the attachment points (footings) were .120 plate and about 36 sq/in.

somewhere I have a video of a Mustang going on its lid and you can see the cage feet punch through the floor.

I will try to model up a few plates and upload them later.

John


I think the is the crash that you are referring to of the Mustang where the cage punched through the floor.  Here is a link to Jalopnik that shows a photo sequence of the crash.
http://jalopnik.com/5390934/mustang-cover-boy-tries-to-corner-flips-over-tire-wall
Here is a forum link that has a pic of where one of the tubes punched through the floor.
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/pics-videos-buffet-149/646980-carfx-eats-hallett.html

Offline Saltfever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2012, 05:33:28 PM »
This is the picture you are referring to. Notice how the uprights punched through the floor. This is a classic case of shear. Many good comments and suggestions have been made to this thread. Especially, how my simple model does not represent a real world scenario. I certainly agree that my model is unnecessarily simple and not representative of any SCTA cage. But the problem is there is no predictable or repeatable model for a Bonneville accident. The load path for any structure is completely random and unpredictable.  See next post.

My concern is addressed in Larry’s post No.9.  Obviously, there will be many attach points in any SCTA approved design. What I’m concerned about is that by adding extremely thick base plates, with thin sheet metal in between, the plates are acting just like blades on a shear. You have a thick, stiff, piece of steel transferring load to a very thin piece of sheet metal. (By definition the rule is for monocoque or uni-body cars, all which have sheet metal assemblies).  As Larry points out (ref no.9); attachments in shear will have a greater tendency to unzip than a design in yield. For any given dimension a shear load path will always be weaker than a path in tension or ductile deformation.

Offline Saltfever

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 276
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2012, 05:57:41 PM »
Sorry about the small pic and thanks to Ray Therat for the photo. This was in 2010.Do you know how this will land? Will it be on single point, flat on the roof, front first, back first? Exactly! . . .  There is no predictable landing and thus, as John has suggested, you would certainly consider other structural geometry in your base plate design. However, the rule book requires ¼” thick plates. I am concerned that these become “shear-plates” and I am asking for help with an FEA model that shows one way or the other if this is true. Would a thinner base plate accept more force before a failure? Will it deform and yield before failure? All of you are creative and can design an acceptable cage. But does the rule book put your design at risk from the start with a less than acceptable base plate? I don’t want to added complexity; I only want to see the essence of the rule. Load-path angles, supports, gussets, all can be added at your pleasure. That is not the issue. Would all those parts, with a thinner base plate make for a better attachment?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 06:00:59 PM by Saltfever »

Offline Interested Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2012, 07:17:02 PM »
Saltfever,
You seem to be convinced that because the rollbar baseplate “punched through” the floor pan that it was a shear failure.  However, to have a failure in shear there must be two opposing forces in close proximity acting across the material section to produce shearing stress.  How many scissors have you seen with only one blade?

The floor pan failure is substantially a tension failure, but the failure is very localized, namely around the perimeter of the baseplate where the floor pan is being loaded by the edge of the baseplate.  Load from the baseplate causes the pan to sag and develop tensile stress in the pan material, since the outer edge of the pan is presumably restrained from moving.  As the load increases, the sag increases, and the tensile stress increases until the tensile strength is exceeded.  This occurs at the edge of the baseplate because that hard edge creates something of a stress concentration there due to the bending of the pan around the corner, and also because away from the baseplate the pan has more material to carry the load, and the tensile stress is therefore less in those areas.

So, given this failure mode, it is apparent that the bigger the baseplate the more the load that can be carried--which is the reason for having a baseplate in the first place.  Eliminating the stress concentration caused by the hard edge of the baseplate, by tapering or rounding the edge or using a thinner baseplate may make a small improvement in the load capacity, but probably not much*.  And those actions may reduce the ultimate capacity if they, in effect, shrink the effective perimeter of the plate and cause even less of the pan material to be carrying the load.  Those actions to reduce the stress concentration may, however, result in marginally greater energy absorption before failure since more material is being stressed.

*Because, once the material with the highest stress in the cross-sectional thickness reaches its yield point it begins to stretch, passing any increased load onto the region next to it until the whole cross-section has yielded and the whole section then stretches until it reaches its ultimate strength.

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2012, 07:47:47 PM »
I can appreciate What your looking for here Saltfever, information is a good thing.
I would just point out the car in your photo sequence did not have a cage failure and the driver recovered to drive again. The crash happened at ~ 260 mph IIRC. Donny can add info if needed.
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2012, 08:03:20 AM »
Saltfever,
You seem to be convinced that because the rollbar baseplate “punched through” the floor pan that it was a shear failure.  However, to have a failure in shear there must be two opposing forces in close proximity acting across the material section to produce shearing stress.  How many scissors have you seen with only one blade?

Without a careful examination of the fracture surfaces and surrounding area of the Mustang punch-through, we are just guessing about the fracture mode.  However, in the case of a car which has flipped upside down and landed on its roof, there are definitely opposing forces in close proximity at the junction of a 1/4" baseplate and a 20 gauge sheet metal floor pan.  The force of the baseplate in that case is in the "upward" direction, away from the salt, and the force of the sheet metal floorpan is in the opposite direction.  My own suspicion is that "it depends" on the location of other support points for the 20 ga. sheet metal.
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Interested Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2012, 09:35:33 AM »
SteveM,
Just because there may be opposing forces doesn’t mean they are in sufficiently “close proximity” to produce a shear failure.  Of course, it does depend on the “location of other support points for the 20 ga. sheet metal” but if that support is not within a few thicknesses of the sheet to the edge of the baseplate how does shear develop? 

What is the origin of the closely applied opposing force you postulate?  Inertia of the 20 gauge sheet?  Bending stiffness of 20 gauge sheet?  Both are negligible.

It is folly to expect a thin diaphragm to provide significant structural support to a concentrated load.

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #67 on: January 21, 2012, 10:10:25 AM »
The origin of the opposing force would be inertia from the rest of the car that has just slammed into the ground, which is attached to the 20 ga. sheet.  As far as I know, we don't have photos of the Mustang's roll cage installation before the crash to see how it was supported.  A close examination of the pictured Mustang, both before and after the wreck would be most helpful for the purposes of failure analysis.


The FEA analysis is a great tool, but as someone said, in order to accurately model the loading and stresses would require a whole lotta time to accurately depict the actual conditions for each car, and would require a lot of computing horsepower.  The stresses would certainly include tension, compression, bending, and shear at the various locations near the support point for the roll cage.

Steve.

1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline johnneilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2012, 10:21:33 AM »
Due to the fact that the roll bar feet both punched through, it is a pretty good assumption that it was a bolt in bar and probably 4 points of contact. It was probably made from decent materials, 1 3/4" dia? It probably had 1/4" plates? The tubing proved that it was adequate.

The failure was the fact that the roll bar didn't have any structure to concentrate 4 points of contact. If, the earlier model showed severe sheet deformation at #100 loading per foot it is not reasonable to assume that the design was sound. Car wt of #3000/4?? In this case, it wouldn't have mattered if the feet were .08 thick or 1" thick. BTW, from the picture the feet look to be very small.

Thinking back on this, years ago, when all I could do was get bolt-in bars and cages for my projects. I modified all the foot plates be radiusing the contact side to reduce the stress concentration against the existing car material. I also shimmed the feet with 16 ga and made them larger than the feet. It was something that I did and I don't remember where the technique came from.

I do not know this for fact, however it is a reasonable assumption that the SCTA uses SFI or NHRA as a guideline for specs in the rule making process.

John




As Carroll Smith wrote; All Failures are Human in Origin.

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2012, 01:10:25 PM »
Here's a look at the aftermath from the flip above, at 260 mph.

So, during all this talk, how is the cage "proven" in a monoque (sp?) chassis?

I guess the simple solution would be ban unit bodied cars.....   :evil:       :-D
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Offline johnneilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2012, 02:24:29 PM »
Here's a look at the aftermath from the flip above, at 260 mph.

So, during all this talk, how is the cage "proven" in a monoque (sp?) chassis?

I guess the simple solution would be ban unit bodied cars.....   :evil:       :-D

Michael,

I think the solution is to read all of the rule specification and then build accordingly.

John
As Carroll Smith wrote; All Failures are Human in Origin.

Offline Interested Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2012, 06:18:47 PM »
A photo of the Mustang foot well after being loaded on a wrecker with, presumably, the protruding part of the cage cut off.  It is not clear if the whole floor panel portion was ripped out in the incident or if it was removed at the same time the tubing was cut off for transport. 

It would seem to be a much better solution to have landed the roll bar on the much more substantial cross frame immediately behind the bar, or the rocker channel just to the outboard.  But that is not as simple for the fabricator (seller) or installer, regardless of the probable benefit to the driver.

Offline johnneilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2012, 10:18:55 PM »
Just my opinion, the cage? was not designed well. It missed very substantial structure less than 4" away. I will reserve other comment.

J

As Carroll Smith wrote; All Failures are Human in Origin.

Offline 4-barrel Mike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3173
  • Any fool can drive a V8
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2012, 11:06:40 PM »
From turboford.com on the Mustang:

"It's an AutoPower 4-point bar. (Was 'cage', changed it to 'bar'.)

The car was built by these clowns for a magazine article.
http://tulsacarfx.com/carfx1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=61

An article.
http://50mustangsuperfords.automotive.com/118359/m5lp-0912-2010-mustang-gt-car-fx/index.html

$60K invested, a $450 roll hoop, and crappy-ass Corbeau seats, Corbeau lost their FIA approvals and certifications years ago because they went after the ricer seat market. Somebody's priorities are a bit lopsided, me thinks.

Complete specifications:
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/featuredvehicles/m5lp_0912_2010_mustang_gt_car_fx_web_exclusive/2008_car_fx_number_12.html

This car is nothing more than a bolt-on pile of cash, assembled by a "builder" whose skills are limited to using a ratchet and something with which to open cardboard boxes from UPS."

My first impression was the the tire barriers were much worse that useless.

Mike
Mike Kelly - PROUD owner of the V4F that powered the #1931 VGC to a 82.803 mph record in 2008!

Offline Rick Byrnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: Roll Cage Base Plate FEA?
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2012, 12:12:53 PM »
Shows to go ya that the easy way out very often comes back to bite you.

Not directed at anyone cept that mustang builder.

just sayin
Rick