Tube/Bar Rigidity: Which Offers Most?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SGT Steel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tube
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on tube versus bar rigidity for supporting a 10-12kg load on cantilevered stainless steel structures, it is noted that tubes generally provide more rigidity than bars, especially with thicker wall thicknesses. However, solid rods outperform thick-walled tubes in terms of rigidity, although their length may limit overall stiffness. The importance of considering allowable deflection is emphasized, suggesting that larger diameters might be necessary for increased rigidity. Participants recommend using beam analysis calculators or CAD models to explore various cross-sectional profiles for optimal performance. Ultimately, the choice involves trade-offs between rigidity, cost, and mounting complexity.
SGT Steel
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

Long time lurker, first time poster! Here is my query...

I need to send a load weighing 10-12kg down two horizontal, parallel, cantilevered, grade 316 stainless steel tubes -- or bars -- each between 3-4 feet in length, 3/4" in diameter, and spaced 85mm apart. What I'd like to know is; in this specific application, would tubes, or bars, offer the most rigidity? If tubes, would a thicker or thinner wall thickness offer the most rigidity?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
A tube with a thicker wall is more rigid than a tube of the same outside diameter and material but with a thinner wall, but the solid rod of the same outside diameter and material is more rigid than the thick walled tube. However, I don't consider a 4 foot long 3/4 inch diameter cantilevered rod as being very rigid. Might want to consider a larger diameter depending on your
application.
 
How much deflection is allowable?
There are many beam analysis calculators on the web or in CAD modellers, or you can do the math yourself for the specific element's cross sectional profile. If you did this, perhaps you would find better solutions than tubular or solid circular cross sections that would solve your deflection issue. But would perhaps be more expensive or require more effort to mount.

It's all a series of trade offs.
 
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...
Thread 'How can I find the cleanout for my building drain?'
I am a long distance truck driver, but I recently completed a plumbing program with Stratford Career Institute. In the chapter of my textbook Repairing DWV Systems, the author says that if there is a clog in the building drain, one can clear out the clog by using a snake augur or maybe some other type of tool into the cleanout for the building drain. The author said that the cleanout for the building drain is usually near the stack. I live in a duplex townhouse. Just out of curiosity, I...
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...
Back
Top