On Fri, 31 May 2002, Lee Jones wrote: >>> Whatever, a pipe will certainly be easier to bend than solid stock. > >> For a given cross section of metal, the above is certainly FALSE. >> It is the whole reason structural tubing is structural _tubing_. > >Agreed. But people usually compare solid round stock to tubing >of the same outside diameter, not cross sectional area. Given a >fixed outside diameter, the cross sectional area will be much >smaller for structural tubing; specific ratio depends on radius >and wall thickness of the tubing. Unless it's an electrical conductor in which case the cross section inmetal counts. This thread is/was about electrical conductors. >For equivalent weight per length, the tubing will be _much_ larger >diameter than the solid stock. For example, given a cross sectional >area of 1 square inch... > >solid stock: > > area = pi * r^2 ; outside diameter is 2 * sqrt( area / pi ) > >solid round stock 1.128" in diameter has a 1 sq in cross section > > >structural tubing (r is outside radius, wt is wall thickness): > > area = (pi * r^2) - (pi * (r - wt)^2) > = (pi * r^2) - (pi * (r^2 -2*r*wt + wt^2) > = (pi * r^2) - (pi * r^2) + (2 * pi * r * wt) - (pi * wt^2) > = (2 * pi * wt * r) - (pi * wt^2) > >solving for radius r... > > r = (area / (2 * pi * wt) ) + (wt / 2) > >or [monospaced font needed] > > area wt > r = ------------- + ---- > (2 * pi * wt) 2 > > >with 0.060" wall thickness, it takes 5.365" outside diameter >structural tubing to get 1 sq in of cross sectional area. > >with 0.125" (1/8") wall thickness, it takes 2.671" outside >diameter tubing to get 1 sq in of cross sectional area. > > >Not sure if anyone cares, but I needed the mental exercise. > > Lee Jones > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList >mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads