When I have seen that kind of bridge on Dana axle assemblies, I assumed the main reason was to provide something to support upper link mounts - not wanting to weld the mounts to the cast housing.
As long as the diff housing is stronger than the tubes and the tubes are fitted properly, you are better (IMHO) to use heavier wall tube.
If the material strength of housing and tube were the same, then compare section properties, in particular the section modulii ('Z'), at the bosses where the tubes fit and the tube.
These are both hollow circular sections so, where 'D' is OD and 'd' is ID:
Z = 3.1416(D^4 - d^4) / (32 x D)
Housing is ok if Z for housing bosses > Z for axle tubes. Then wall thickness of axle tubes can be increased until both Z's are similar.
If allowable material strengths are different, then multiply each Z by the associated allowable material strength and compare those values.
i.e. allowable strength = tensile strength / SF
Generally I would use a larger safety factor for the cast housing material to determine allowable material strength. The larger factor is to account for such things as casting variations/flaws and lower ductility.
The diff housing and axle tubes are subjected to combined torsion (reaction from link forces) and bending (reaction from wheel and spring forces).
If the section modulus of the housing bosses is > = to the axle tubes, then the housing will withstand the torsional loading better - simply because the od of the bosses is larger than od of tubes.
There are many possible bending cases or combinations to consider.
Vertical loads from the vehicle weight when supported by the wheels, or when supported by the diff housing (on a rock for example). Which induce bending in the vertical plane.
Horizontal loads from tyre traction, link forces, steps/ledges at tyres and or diff.
Bending is proportional to the algebraic sum of the different forces and reactions to one side of the section under consideration x distance from the section to the force - force x distance is called the moment of the force and will be assigned either clockwise (+ve) or counter clockwise (-ve).
Without getting into a discussion of why, the worse case bending loads and critical section locations are:
For low impact loading (not landing from a jump) and vehicle supported on one wheel (other wheel in air) the critical section is at the location of the spring, the forces to one side of this section are wheel loads (vertical and horizontal) and link load. This case is worse than when both wheels are sharing the vehicle weight - the vertical wheel load will be approx double that when both equally share the weight equally. If up against a ledge, the horizontal load may be significant.
For landing from a jump, the dynamic vertical load can be much higher and it is important to reduce it by transform the kinetic energy into strain energy in the springs at as low a spring force as possible (i.e. large bump travel). The critical section is at the location of the springs. This is assuming the landing impacts on the tyres and not the diff housing.
In both of the above cases, if the distance from the wheel to spring is increased, the bending will also be increased proportionally.
If the weight is supported by the diff sitting on the ground, the reaction from the ground will be pushing up and the spring forces and wheel weight will be down.
The critical section will be either where the bosses protrude from the diff housing or where the axle tubes protrude from the bosses (depending on comparative section modulii). Without a more thorough check, it is probably fair to say, if the distance from the critical section to the springs is more than double the distance from the spring to the wheel, this case is likely to be worse than the 1st case above (weight on one wheel).
In this last case a truss will help by moving the critical section out to where the truss connects to the axle tube. It does this by reducing the distance form the critical section to the loads (and hence reducing the moment).



Reply With Quote


Bookmarks