Physicists and wood tank builders...

The comparison to prestressed steel in concrete is a good one. In a simple case, when you bend a beam, the material on the concave side is under compression, and vice versa. If the beam is prestressed (using rods that run along the length of the beam), then you have to bend it more before the convex side is under tension. Tensile loads cause materials to yield. To be absolutely rigorous, it is shear stresses that cause materials to yield. We have to differentiate between stresses and loads. The stress that causes yielding is the same for tempered and untempered glass sheet. It's just that the sheet has the outer surface initially under compression. The way this is engineered is different for the glass and the concrete beam, but the results are similar. As a side note, tempering metals is a different process, but has the same name because it involves controlling the heat treatment. For the tempered glass, the outer surface is cooled faster than the inside, and because hotter material is less dense than cooler material, stresses result. Once the material is cooled to a certain point, the thermal energy of the atoms is insufficient to relax the stresses, and the tempered condition is frozen in. You could reverse the process by annealing - where you'd heat the glass up to a temperature where the stresses relax, and then cool slowly, not quickly.

Strength is not a simple term when you get into the engineering nitty gritty. The stress needed to propagate a crack in tempered and untempered glass is the same, it's just that for the same load, the stresses are less in the tempered material. ]

Hardness is defined as the resistance to plastic deformation, and is a difficult idea to quantify. Really, you indent the material and compare the results qualitatively. That's why there are lots of scales for hardness.

I'm sure there are standards, but I don't know what they are. They would depend on chemical composition, thicknesses, and cooling rates. I'd say that the difference between the max loads for tempered and untempered glass is significant. Again, though, as in my other post, there is a lot of scatter in the data for ceramic materials like glass. For this reason, glass, like other ceramics, are poor choices for most structural engineering applications. Another reason is that when they fail, they fail catastrophically.

G1
 
Thanks G1. I apprectate that information from an expert in the field.

Off the top of your head, would you be comfortable with an aquarium viewing panel of low iron, tempered 3/4" glass that measured 84"x30"?

Joe
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6790858#post6790858 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by goby1
Also, the greatest hydrostatic force is at the bottom of the panel, not the middle. The specific weight is not what you listed, it's 1.026.

G1

?????????
First of the specific weight is different that specific gravity which was 1.025 in my calculations, the specific gravity is related to density, the specific weight is the density times the gravitational force as stated above.

Also the greatest hydrostatic force on the glass is NOT at the bottom, where did you get that info from?? I explained my calculations above.

Also I also mentioned my calculations were elementary and should not be taken to be the exact representation of proper glass thickness. Don't worry I don't work TOO hard at school, my fish tanks keep me busier than school does. Thanks for the luck, I'll need every bit of it.
 
I've always used them interchangably, which is not correct. You're right, they are different. Specific weight is the same as the density, like g/cm^3.

Deeper water = more hydrostatic pressure at the bottom.
psi is about half the depth in feet. 2ft 1psi, 4ft 2psi. Seems more at the bottom.

I don't understand your units of kg/m^2/s^2.

G1
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6798412#post6798412 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by goby1
I've always used them interchangably, which is not correct. You're right, they are different. Specific weight is the same as the density, like g/cm^3.

Deeper water = more hydrostatic pressure at the bottom.
psi is about half the depth in feet. 2ft 1psi, 4ft 2psi. Seems more at the bottom.

I don't understand your units of kg/m^2/s^2.

G1

Units for specific weight are kg/(m^2*s^2)

yes more pressure is located at the bottom, but don't forget the glass is supported at the bottom and the top, therefore the greatest hydrostatic force on the glass occurs between the centroid and the bottom of the glass.
 
Ok, N/m^3 is more clear though.

I don't see how a greater hydrostatic pressure will generate less hydrostatic force. They are linked through area...

G1
 
I'm not sure why you're still confused. I was focusing on where the greatest hydrostatic force will occur on the glass, not where the greatest pressure occurs in the water. But you're right the greatest force does occur at the bottom when you're looking at the force distribution on the glass. However we can sum all the forces and apply it a central point.

I can't make it much clearer that this:
force.jpg


Like I said before the force is not uniform on the plane and therefore the line of action is not at the centroid but below it.

Let me know if you're still confused about this.
 
All I meant was that the arrow on the bottom on the left is longer than all the others on the left. The averaging you are doing on the right is a tool for solving statics problems, like this one. That arrow on the right is not a real force, much less a hydrostatic one. It's important to be rigorous...

Cheers,
G1
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6810152#post6810152 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by goby1
All I meant was that the arrow on the bottom on the left is longer than all the others on the left. The averaging you are doing on the right is a tool for solving statics problems, like this one. That arrow on the right is not a real force, much less a hydrostatic one. It's important to be rigorous...

Cheers,
G1

I fail to see what that was all about then.

And the force on the right is a resultant hydrostatic force. Look it up.
 
Sorry that I didnt read every line of the previous posts, but I supported the thought that 1/2" glass was enough for the front only because I know that 1/2" glass ( tempered or not ) is far stronger than 1" Plywood.

If 1" ply is OK for the back & bottom, then 1/2" glass for the front should be OK. That's just a rule of thumb. Not engineering. What you guys are doing is real engineering....

Just my 0.02

Stu
 
Thanks for the English translation stugray. They lost me along time ago. :confused:

Calculus was never my strong point! :hmm6:
 
Back
Top