Optimum Reef Tank Proportions?

[IANick]

Don't know if this would be considered an "Advanced" topic, but here we go...

Is there an optimum reef tank proportion ratio? I don't mean size, because we all know that if finances allow, bigger is better. Rather, is there a ratio of length, to width, to height that is best? On another thread I started about an upcoming build, a commenter noted that my proposed 73.5"L x 23.5"W x 32"T (~210g after accounting for 0.75" glass) tank was "too narrow" in relation to the height. He mentioned that the gas exchange offered by my proposed width would be sub-optimal for the depth. This was an interesting point that, frankly, I had not considered. But it is also one man's opinion... is there agreement on the point (If it makes a difference, I should add that I intend to run an internal coast to coast toothless calfo with bean system the entire width of the tank).

I should add, that on the preceding logic, and not to be silly, but simply to make a point, a similar volume tank at a depth of just 3" would be infinitely better... but obviously completely unworkable. So the question is, is there an "ideal" ratio, regardless of tank volume? Perhaps this discussion on ideal proportions may also include consideration of practical dimension limitations (for things like tank accessibility, aquascaping, and pure aesthetics).

Thoughts? both on the theoretical nature of the question as well as my specific proposed dimensions?

 

[KafudaFish]

Golden ratio.

 

[kegogut]

I dont think there is an "ideal" size. If you can build and work with it then you are good.

The standard 225 which I have is 72"x24x30". So your looking pretty close to that anyway.

People have tanks of any and every size imaginable,if thats the size your happy with do it! :hammer:

 

[IANick]

Golden ratio.

This is more of a purely "aquascaping" principle is it not?

 

[IANick]

The standard 225 which I have is 72"x24x30". So your looking pretty close to that anyway.

People have tanks of any and every size imaginable,if thats the size your happy with do it! :hammer:

Thanks Kegout. Yeah, thats what I thought, but that doesn't necessarily mean the "standard" is optimum. In any event, aside from the more theoretical issue of gas exchange, any issues for you regarding accessibility in your tank?

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

I wouldn't worry about the ratio for gas exchange - as long as you have a skimmer you will have plenty of gas exchange.

However, some tanks are more ideal than others as far as rock work... for example, a 55g is too narrow front-to-back to allow for a rock structure tall enough to fill up the height of the tank.

 

[kegogut]

Thanks Kegout. Yeah, thats what I thought, but that doesn't necessarily mean the "standard" is optimum. In any event, aside from the more theoretical issue of gas exchange, any issues for you regarding accessibility in your tank?

There is the issue of me being short and the tank being deep but only if I have to reach the bottom but thats what forceps and such are for! :thumbsup:

Gas exchange should never be a problem with overflows and skimmers,sumps etc. as there will be plenty of movement and exchange thru the process.

 

[kegogut]

However, some tanks are more ideal than others as far as rock work... for example, a 55g is too narrow front-to-back to allow for a rock structure tall enough to fill up the height of the tank.

Exactly. Like I said if you can build in it and be happy do it.

 

[stlcard]

standard 120!! 48x24x24!!

 

[el aguila]

I have a 190. 60 x 24 x 30. I love the extra depth (better for long armed reefers), but If I could do it over again, I'ld go wider than 24.

Gas exchange isn't a real issue with normal reef tank flow and a skimmer.

 

[Epicreefer]

The issue you run into with tanks which are short in the width dimention is stacking rock and shading corals lower in the tank. It's hard to stack rock taller than the footprint it takes up, not impossible but not easy. So it would make sence that you wouldn't want to be more than 6" taller than you are wide. Also you end up filling in the tank a lot and it looks smaller when you add enough rock to get to the top. Then there is light. More height means you need more powerful lights, and all the overhangs and corals on top can over shade the bottom. So an ideal tank for the corals and lighting would be no more than 12" tall but like you said it's not very appealing to have a short tank. I like 1.25x wider than height but think a square side profile is ok, and slighty higher than wide, like your original dimensions should do fine with some careful rock stacking.

 

[Lavoisier]

I like my new 96x48x30. Lots of space to acquiesce

 

[IANick]

Thanks guys... Nice to hear that most think the gas exchange issue is a bit of a red herring.

Epireefer, good thoughts on height vs width. I knew I'd want some extra width, if possible, for aquascaping, but you reinforced that belief. In my setup, I may have the ability to add a few extra width inches... Perhaps get the width up to 28". Will require some mods to by existing cabinetry, but it might be possible.

On a related note, what would others do if they had the following choice:

A) A 72 x 24 x 32 tank with a 4" external coast to coast overflow?

Or

B) a 72 x 28 x 32 tank with a 4" internal coast to coast overflow?

 

[Gorgok]

Only one dimension matters i think (to a point)... height. Unless you want to go topless often, having less height than your maximum reach is probably best.

Now, if you are okay with being topless often, and your other dimensions are big enough to go shoulders deep, you can go a little higher...

 

[hk855]

I would go with the internal overflow and bulkheads out the back. More water volume and again footprint for rocks. If you could go 28" pluss another 4" for external I would do that! but then DIY construction gets more complicated too with an external overflow probably not much more to have built though.

 

[LouH]

A buddy of mine has a tank that I believe measures 3'X3'X4'. Two things make his tank dimensions ideal:

1. The top is nearly square, so he can use a single MH fixture to illuminate the tank, and he does it with a 1000W beast;
2. Corals grow in every dimension, so his tank has very mature, natural looking corals. It literally looks like someone took a chain saw and cut a big chunk of a reef off and set it in his living room. He has an anchor coral the size of a volley ball, and an open brain coral that is about the same size.

My tank, by comparison, measures 72" x 18" X 18". If I were to do it again, I'd go 30 " front to back and 24" (possibly 30") deep to allow corals to grow to larger size. Right now I have some really nice Montipora colonies that are going to start hitting the front pane of glass because the tank is too shallow front to back. They are well on their way to being massive colonies, but my tank dimensions are going to prohibit this.

 

[E Rosewater]

I find aquascaping to be easier if the tank is not taller than it is wide.

 

[IANick]

Well, my upcoming ~ 210g build will probably be bumping up to 240g - 275g!

I'm a tall guy, and I think the 32" depth will be ok for access... particularly with a 3 or 4" sandbed. And I think aesthetically, it makes for a more impressive viewing experience. But I definitely think some cabinetry modifications are upcoming to get a wider tank of 28 - 30".

FYI, the tank will be in my home office... when we built the house three years ago we installed cutom floor to ceiling (~ 11 foot ceiling) dark brown shelving that took up one entire wall of the office. The shelving is to the left and right of the middle section that will house the DT. The cabinetry surrounds a custom built stand (based on RocketEngineers stand design... the floor also has an engineered beam below the tank area for structural integrity). So in order to increase the tank width, I (well, a contractor I guess) will have to remove some of the facade surrounding the tank, remove the stand and widen it, then rebuild the center section of the cabinetry facade back around the newly widened stand.... not something I wanted to do, but I think I'll be happier in the long run because of it.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughhts.

 

[TylerHaworth]

My new system is 27" tall and it is too damn tall! I get wet ears when I have to reach all the way to the bottom near the back!

Future setups will be 24" tall max unless I'm going crazy custom huge. Length x Depth I like something close to 2:1... 48x24 or 60x30, I think when you hit 6' the width doesn't have to increase as drastically

 

[ChadRaay86]

I Have a 300DD 72X36X27 and I like it alot for the incredible depth that I get from front to back. If I were to do it again I'd go custom and do an 84or96X32-34x24-27. the depth is just a bit too much to deal with and the length isn't condusive to alot of the cooler tangs

I'd say focus on length and width and leave height as an after thought. With a shallow tank you'd use less energy lighting for sure and coral placement would be less of an issue