Moment of inertia (structural shapes)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on replacing hollow structural shapes with open structures while ensuring equivalent or greater moment of inertia. Participants emphasize the importance of comparing moment of inertia values to maintain structural integrity, particularly in bending scenarios. Concerns about torsional rigidity and lateral-torsional buckling are raised, indicating that these factors can significantly affect performance. Specific calculations are mentioned, suggesting that a 4"x4"x1/4" angle iron may need additional thickness to match the moment of inertia of a 3" schedule 40 pipe. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for careful analysis of structural properties when making material substitutions.
famine
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm working on a project to replace hollow structures, (pipe, sq. tube, ect...) with open structures, (channels, angle iron, ect...). It's been a while and I think that all I would have to do is compair the moment of inertia for each of these shapes and make sure that they match or are larger than that of the original shape.

example:
3" sch40 pipe, 3.5" OD, 3.068" ID
I=3.016

equivalent angle iron
4"x4"x1/4"
I=3.04

Sorry if this is a stupid question, it's been years since I've had to do anything like this.

Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You might need to see if there are any other questions as to torsional rigidity etc. Depending on the loading involved, lateral-torsional buckling and/or torsional rigidity might come into play.
 
Thanks calebking

Tortional loading shouldn't be a problem in this situation
 
For stiffness comparing the moment of inertia is correct. Not sure what it's for but I agree with caleb, the torsional properties are quite different, and they are usually important. For example your steel angle will naturally twist when in bending and will eventually provide only it's lowest stiffness, Ixy (the I about a line 45 degrees to the legs, it becomes a V rather than L). S
 
So if I'm looking at this right the I that I would be getting withy a 4x4x1/4 angle would be somewhere in the realm of 1.22in^4 and that is what I need to be matching with the I of a round pipe? So for a 4x4 to match up with a 3" pipe I would need somewhere between 5/8"-3/4" plate to get an I above 3.
 
famine, you are picking up what I am laying down, yes between an L4x4x5/8 and an L4x4x3/4. That's unrestrained and in bending, again, do not know what your example is with the limited info provided. S
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...

Similar threads

Back
Top