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.
 
Thread 'I need a concave mirror with a focal length length of 150 feet'
I need to cut down a 3 year old dead tree from top down so tree causes no damage with small pieces falling. I need a mirror with a focal length of 150 ft. 12" diameter to 36" diameter will work good but I can't think of any easy way to build it. Nothing like this for sale on Ebay. I have a 30" Fresnel lens that I use to burn stumps it works great. Tree service wants $2000.
Hi all, i have some questions about the tesla turbine: is a tesla turbine more efficient than a steam engine or a stirling engine ? about the discs of the tesla turbine warping because of the high speed rotations; does running the engine on a lower speed solve that or will the discs warp anyway after time ? what is the difference in efficiency between the tesla turbine running at high speed and running it at a lower speed ( as fast as possible but low enough to not warp de discs) and: i...
Back
Top