|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1648 Painted Frame / teaser 2
Quote:
Decreasing the wall thickness to match the equivant 80-20 stiffness, it would be lighter. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1648 Painted Frame / teaser 2
Would you mind pointing me to the data that backs this up?
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1648 Painted Frame / teaser 2
Quote:
For bending, I constrained both ends of a 1' beam and applied a load to the top face. For torsion, I constrained one end of the same beam and applied a torque to the other. 100lbf load on top face of section, ends constrained: 0.001536" max deflection 8020 (load split between two top flanges on either side of groove) 0.001614" max deflection 0.063" 0.001006" max deflection 0.125" 200 in-lbf torque at end of section, other end constrained: 0.1311" max deflection 8020 0.01055" max deflection 0.063" 0.006772" max deflection 0.125" The weight of 8020 vs 0.125" 1x1 box is virtually the same, 0.063" would be roughly half. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1648 Painted Frame / teaser 2
Cool, thanks for the info.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|