A K-whopper is lighter than a Freight-shaker? Man, I'm having a hard time getting my head around that.
Re: Dumps (straight truck) splitting frames: I had 2 Brigadiers and a Mack DM -- all spec'd for dumps.
The Mack frame split several times, causing me a few weeks in downtime and thousands in repairs at "expert" shops. I ended up taking a whole day off and doing my own repair (drill, bolt with "grade 9" fasteners, weld patches) -- that lasted.
All 3 had steel frames; the GM frames seemed lighter than the Mack's -- which at first made me think "uh oh: they're more fragile." In the dump business, you don't get the luxury of babying your equipment: either it can do the job or it can't.
Anybody having experience as a fleet owner or manager will know that you can often get competent drivers that will care reasonably for the vehicle with which they are entrusted, but invariably and inevitably, grossly incompetent "drivers" get through the vetting process.
In that case, the best you can hope for is to have idiot-proof equipment. If it's got a manual transmission, you're begging for downtime and repairs related to shock loads (snapped driveline components) and abuse (fried clutches, etc.)
And if you've been dumping for a while, you know that a fried clutch only happens when the driver has stuck the truck in a remote area -- so you're looking at a tow charge on top of the repair costs.
Fortunately, I missed out on most (but unfortunately, not all) of that, but many of my competitors weren't so fortunate. Such is life, I guess. Anyway, my Mack had a 237 and I think a M6 trans; the GMs had 3208 Cat power with Allisons.
In heavy hauling & severe duty applications, nothing beats an automatic transmission, and the Cats I had were the envy of all the truckers at every job: the Allisons kept them in the sweet spot, and they would flat out MOVE when the go-pedal was mashed.
My Mack had a higher top speed and more power than the GMs, but round-trip times were usually almost identical between the 3 trucks (the GMs were quicker on short hauls, and vice-versa). I saw snapped axles from both Eaton and Rockwell, always behind a manual tranny -- and more fried clutches than I can count.
I mention all this to say that the shock loads transmitted to the frame are typically much more severe with a manual transmission; my guess is that the snapped frames others have witnessed also happened to trucks having manual transmissions.
Semis usually get comparatively smooth roads to travel over as contrasted against those for straight trucks; however, I can see where a tractor's frame would need to flex a bit.
On the other hand, I really can't imagine aluminum being weaker for a tractor application: the sales guy and the engineers should have ensured the frame was properly-spec'd -- and the frame of a properly-spec'd truck *should* last the life of the truck (or at least many millions of miles).
Aluminum isn't *inherently* a bad material for frames, and in some applications the tare savings can be worth very much more than the added cost.
If you've got frame cracking problems in a tractor, and you're using aluminum rails, switch to an automatic transmission. Do your homework and spec the right auto trans (and final drive), and you may actually see a significant improvement (reduction) in your fuel consumption. Regardless, I'm thinking that will cure your frame-snapping ills.
Other things to watch out for include incompetent loader operators and improper distribution of forces through the frame during especially loading (improper axle position, improper fifth wheel/kingpin location, etc.) -- not to make it too complicated, but the easy solution might not address your biggest problem (the *cause* of the frame snappage).
If I was hauling common freight with a semi, I'd want an aluminum frame in my tractor -- and probably in my trailer, too -- if I could get enough business to cube-out or if the savings in weight would help me get more loads (not over gross) or if the savings in weight would help me get to where I could get a better deal on fuel.