I need to find a low deflection rectangular steel tube

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a suitable low deflection rectangular steel tube for a specific application involving a miter table for steel roofs. Participants explore material options, particularly between carbon steel and stainless steel, while considering factors such as deflection, weight, and rust resistance.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant specifies the need for a 1"x.5" rectangular tube with a .065" wall thickness and 84" length, expressing concerns about deflection and the suitability of 304 stainless steel compared to carbon steel.
  • Another participant suggests that metal on metal can have high friction, proposing the idea of coating or lubricating the frame to reduce effort in pushing the saw.
  • A different participant acknowledges the potential for coating but raises concerns about metal shards damaging the coating, suggesting that a very hard coating like chrome might be necessary.
  • One participant claims that carbon steel and stainless steel (including SS 304) have approximately the same deflection, stating that carbon steel is only about 4% stiffer, and suggests that either material is a viable option.
  • Another participant expresses relief at the information regarding stiffness, indicating a preference to proceed with stainless steel due to availability constraints.
  • A suggestion is made to use HDPE between the guide and the saw base to facilitate easier sliding of the saw.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the deflection characteristics of carbon steel versus stainless steel, with some asserting they are nearly equal while others remain uncertain about the implications for the specific application. The discussion includes both agreement on the potential use of stainless steel and differing opinions on the best approach to reduce friction in the miter table design.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the limitations of available materials and the specific requirements of the application, including the need for rigidity and low deflection, while also considering the impact of coatings and lubrication on performance.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals involved in metalworking, engineering design, or those interested in developing tools for construction and roofing applications may find this discussion relevant.

iakobos
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
What I need is a 1"x.5" rectangular tube .065" wall and 84" long steel tube that will have the least or very low deflection. I have been trying to educate myself today on the different grades of SS which would be preferable for rust resistance. If I understand things correctly 304 SS is the most common but apparently it is more deflective than carbon steel. I have tried what I believe to be a mild 1x1.5x.065 carbon steel in my application and found it deflects too easily. I am concerned 304 SS will be worse.

What I can't change is the requirement for 1"x.5" 84" long. I can use either carbon or stainless (prefer stainless) and increase the wall thickness to .125" but would prefer not to for weight reasons. Specifically, I need the tube to be more rigid and stay very straight and I need suggestions on which grades of carbon and stainless steel will work better.

What I am working on is a new invention. I install steel roofs. Roofs with hips and valleys require a miter cut with a circular saw on steel roof panels that are 39" wide. Miter cuts may easily range up to 60". I've invented a Miter Table (pat. pend.) that makes the task much easier. My prototype is entirely aluminum. The miter assembly consists of two rails under the roof panel that support the panel and two rails above the roof panel that support and guide the circular saw. The aluminum I used was stiff enough to not deflect but it creates too much drag on the aluminum base of the saw making it harder to push. That is why I'm switching to steel.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Metal on metal can have high coefficients of friction, making it harder to push one metal item over another. I assume your frame is not painted or coated.

I don't know much about your device, but would it be possible to coat it or lubricate it in some fashion? For instance, if the frame were coated with plastic or painted with epoxy, the change in friction might be such to reduce the effort required to push the saw.
 
Painting or coating is certainly a possibility. That's another avenue I may experiment with. Part of the problem with aluminum on aluminum, in my application, is even if one surface is painted, metal shards will be thrown between the base of the circular saw and the rail it glides across. My concern is the steel shards will still dig through a coating and cause problems. To negate this issue would require a very hard coating. I've thought of chrome as one possibility but am not sure how feasible it would be to have it done.
 
iakobos: Any steel (including carbon steel) and any stainless steel (including SS 304) will have approximately the same deflection. Carbon steel is only approximately 4 % stiffer than stainless steel. No noticeable difference. You can call them equal. There is nothing else economical that will be stiffer than carbon steel or stainless steel 304. Either one of these is your best choice; and they are essentially equal in stiffness. Therefore, use whichever one you prefer.
 
nvn, Thanks for the info. Since 4% is not that much different, that gives me relief to go ahead with SS. From what I can tell no other SS grade is commonly available in my size requirement.
 
Use a piece of HDPE (high-density polyethylene) between the guide and the base of the saw. The saw will slide very easily.

HDPE is pretty easy to find, and it can be cut and drilled with common woodworking tools.
 
Thanks pantaz, I'll look into it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
16K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
11K