Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the bending strength of square tubing, specifically comparing 3"x3" 1/4" wall and 4"x4" 3/16" wall options for constructing a hoist beam with a 10' span. Participants explore calculations related to bending moments, material properties, and load capacities, while also considering alternative construction methods.
Discussion Character
- Technical explanation
- Mathematical reasoning
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant inquires about the strength comparison between 3"x3" and 4"x4" square tubing for a hoist beam.
- Another participant suggests calculating the bending moment of inertia for each cross section to determine strength, emphasizing the importance of material properties.
- It is noted that most box tubing is A36 steel, which may influence calculations.
- A participant proposes an alternative construction method using three 2x6x10 yellow pine boards, aiming to support a weight of 1500 lbs.
- Concerns are raised about safety, with a suggestion to hire an engineer for the design of the hoist beam.
- One participant claims that a 4"x4" hollow tube with 3/16" walls should hold 1500 lbs, but acknowledges that this depends on factors like drilled holes and beam support.
- Calculations are provided showing that the 4"x4" beam has a higher moment of inertia (6.59 in^4) compared to the 3"x3" beam (3.16 in^4), indicating less deflection.
- A participant admits to an error in their maximum force calculation, realizing they underestimated the load capacity by a factor of 2.
- Another participant asks for equations or tables related to cantilevered beams and computations for various sizes and wall thicknesses of square tubing.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the calculations and safety considerations, with no consensus reached on the best approach or final recommendations for the hoist beam design.
Contextual Notes
Some calculations and assumptions regarding material properties and load conditions remain unresolved, and the discussion reflects varying levels of expertise among participants.