So I have found a tank I am very interested in. Problem is, it is quite a ways away. I also do not have a large truck, so I will be using a trailer. It is a 200 gallon deep dimension tank 4x3x 27" i believe. When transporting on a trailer what would you suggest putting under the tank? Simple as a thick mat or other??? Strapping it down is not big deal, I have that part figured out. However I am only worried about the roads, bumps, jumps, and what-nots lol. Anyway, suggestions welcome. TIA!!!
-
Welcome back Guest!MARSH is a private reefing group. Comments and suggestions are encouraged, but please keep them positive and constructive. Negative threads, posts, or attacks will be removed from view and reviewed by the staff. Continually disruptive, argumentative, or flagrant rule breakers may be suspended or banned.
How to transport large tank...Need suggestions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cathman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users who are viewing this thread
ReefMaster32787
Guest
I definitely would not put it on a trailer. I would consider renting a truck from lowes or home depot maybe even call a tow company with a flatbed. My father in law used one to transport his snap-on tool box. IMO a regular trailer would be a bad idea it would see so much abuse going down the road, I would lose my peace of mind. Again that's just my opinion.
I would personally rent a truck from Uhaul. I think this $19.95/ daily.
This will reduce shock.
Go to Lowes and get some 1-2" blue or pink Dow Styrofoam board. It's located in the back by lumber and trim. It's about $10 a sheet.
It's great to put under your tank when on the stand to. It spreads the load (weight) and reduces stress to the tank. If you had a tank with a crappy silicone seam job, it will be less likely to fail with foam spreading the load.
I would personally rent a truck from Uhaul. I think this $19.95/ daily.
This will reduce shock.
Go to Lowes and get some 1-2" blue or pink Dow Styrofoam board. It's located in the back by lumber and trim. It's about $10 a sheet.
It's great to put under your tank when on the stand to. It spreads the load (weight) and reduces stress to the tank. If you had a tank with a crappy silicone seam job, it will be less likely to fail with foam spreading the load.
Foam board is not recommended if the tank has trim. It actually increases the risk of putting stress on the tank seams.
Where did you hear that? Not from anything I've read or heard. Do you have the source information?
That doesn't seem logical.
I moved my 8 foot reef tank from San Antonio in an enclosed uhaul trailer- would recommend that route.
Can you guys provide the references about the foam board.
Not trying to argue or start a fight. I want to read it. I want to do the best thing for my tank (which has foam board under it currently) and I want to read what is said about it and try to understand logically why it would "not" spread the load and actually weaken the structural integrity of the tank. Not sure why a tank with trim would make any difference.
Everything I read is that people have had foam under their tanks for years without failure. Does anybody know of a thread on any reef forum that it's documented where a tank failed due to foam? If not, I'm gonna assume it's safe unless I can read or see pictures of a foam failure disaster.
Just read this comment:
Why would the force (tension) exerted on the bottom seams be different for a tank whose bottom panel is sitting on foam (leaving the edges suspended) than one that only makes contact around the perimeter edges? From what I understand, the perimeter frames are purely for aesthetics and provide no significant structural aid. The center brace, when present, is not a part of this conversation. For long tanks, they are an absolute necessity.
This topic has come up before and I asked the same question on another thread. I never got an answer. People don't seem to like to answer engineering/physics questions, but the answer to my question will tell you with certainty what risks you are taking when you float a tank on foam. Besides the edge friction for perimeter loading, there is no difference in tension on seams when considering either configuration. I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty confident that my statements are correct.
My 72" long tank has been floating on foam without the edges making contact with the stand for 9 years. IMO, manufacturers specify edge loading because they fear replacing tanks under warranty when someone floats a tank on a hard surface and a point load results in a broken bottom pane.
Just read this comment:
Why would the force (tension) exerted on the bottom seams be different for a tank whose bottom panel is sitting on foam (leaving the edges suspended) than one that only makes contact around the perimeter edges? From what I understand, the perimeter frames are purely for aesthetics and provide no significant structural aid. The center brace, when present, is not a part of this conversation. For long tanks, they are an absolute necessity.
This topic has come up before and I asked the same question on another thread. I never got an answer. People don't seem to like to answer engineering/physics questions, but the answer to my question will tell you with certainty what risks you are taking when you float a tank on foam. Besides the edge friction for perimeter loading, there is no difference in tension on seams when considering either configuration. I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty confident that my statements are correct.
My 72" long tank has been floating on foam without the edges making contact with the stand for 9 years. IMO, manufacturers specify edge loading because they fear replacing tanks under warranty when someone floats a tank on a hard surface and a point load results in a broken bottom pane.
From what my understanding is that foam is mainly used on rimless tanks or tanks without "trim", euro-brace, and acrylic etc... cause your tank that has the "trims" sits on the trim it self... But that's just my two cents. Lol no refund please.
You can do what you want. Contact the manufacturer, most will tell you NO to using foam board on tanks with trim. Rimless glass tanks foam is required. Acrylic tanks are supposed to be placed on a very smooth hard surface.
If your on RC, ping James in the acrylic thread about acrylic tanks or uncleof6 for glass in the DIY forum.
James Lynch
Guest
I know Planet Aquariums told me not to put foam under mine. It has trim on it.
Couple interesting reads:
From: (simple copy and paste for your reference, may be out of context and duplicate of above)
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1337487
3. Foam............WarrenG debated this to some length a few months ago. Prior to that discussion the subject had been on my mind, during the discussion over those couple of days, and ever since.
As I said last time, foam under a tank is a much debated concept, some say yes, others no. Though the concept sounds very sound, something raises the hairs on my neck about. Which is why I recended my stance before to relegate for more information before comming to a conclusion.
It is even split down the lines of manufacturers, with the Engineer's at Aqueon (All-glass) saying not to. And then you have the others that claim "I have always placed foam under my tank and its been fine" This is just plain poor logic, and one who's tank did not crack and spill water all over the floor can not tell what effect and to what degree the foam helped or hindered.
One of the main logical fallacies we as Reefers are prone to is the over utilization of observation through sight only. Cause and Effect, A=B, 1+2=3..........we draw observational inferences from limited statistical data through observation only and try to come up with catch all/stead fast rules to be governed by.
Most of the time, because of the scale and the degree of error to which we are working in we are safe, but as we get into larger and larger models (tanks), we begin to see our logic break down as the things we did not think to consider have an effect on the system. This is EXACTLY why we see so many people who are setting up their second or third tanks and have problems selecting the wrong pumps. As the stakes get larger, the circumstances are greater, and our delinquencies shown. This would be main point here. In small scale tanks, you can get away with murder as far as placement orientation, equipment selection you name it........on a bigger tank, if you don't select the right pump that is operating within its BEP range, you can end up with a poor preforming, expensive pump because we were using the same "rule of thumb" for a smaller tank than a big one or designing the system after buying the pump rather before. This is how I will comment on using foam underneath a tank.
In my research before, during and since the last discussion on the subject, I dug through each of my Mechanical Engineering textbooks looking for a similar application, researched hours of articles on the subject, even consulted with my peers who are also Mechanical Engineers on the subject, even going as far as to ask the wife of a friend who is a Materials Engineer with Lockheed Martin. All had the same response I have, "Maybe, but I wouldn't risk it."
Why? For the basic statics of the situation, most have a basic understanding of the subject, but there is a lot that is overlooked and brought into the equation when this material is introduced. The main problem with this discussion is: Nobody can really tell until it tested. You see, foam is a semi-rigid body and varies with different compositions. Its at the point that it is settled and compressed that concerns me. Discussions of dynamic loading, sheer strength of the two planes, a failure due to fatique have never been considered, especially factors of safety.
True, you may lessen a stress point or a discontinuity eliminating some of the stress on the bottom pane, but that may open up another set of problems that you may have not considered.
I found this quote in a preview of a journal article I that uses words other than my own.
"On the Crushing Stress of Open Cell Foams
The compressive response of many foams is characterized by an initial linearly elastic regime which is terminated by instability. For open cell foams instability leads to localized buckling and collapse of zones of cells. Local collapse in these zones is terminated by contact between cell ligaments. "
Of course, remember I have not defined which tanks we are speaking of. It seems to be current thought that it is accetable practice to place foam under acrylic tanks to ensure distributed loading. I could agree with this provided that the thickness was not extreme so as to bring about other problems. Think of the princess and the pea. Once she couldn't feel that pea under all those materess which compressed and took in all the feel of the pea, how stable do you think it was to shear loading? I digress.
In reefing the stakes get higher the farther you climb be it with livestock, expensive fish or larger tanks. There is always less room for error, and what applied before may not apply now. This is my main concern of the catch all of using "foam" and makes me nervous. Thicknesses, densities, sizes change which change all of the rules. For instance is a chart I made up quickly to illustrate the loading on the rims of glass tanks. As you can see, the psi increase with tank size.
It shows the stakes get larger as the tank gets bigger, so one "catch all" rule has the potential for mistake, it is up to the individual to make that call for themselves and what makes them more comfortable.
My answer on foam......I don't know as semi-rigid bodies are unpredictable, especially when the application for the material can not be found elsewhere.
Water pushes in all directions, not just down which is why spheres are best in high pressure depths. The Normal force is force that is straight down. In your tank, the water is always pushing out in every direction, trying to split the joints to "find its lowest point".
This is what I have discovered in my research on the subject and thought I would share it with you guys. This is my .02, please use it to ponder to make your own decision.
| From: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1642406 "1."Design Considerations Compressive and flexural strength values for expanded polystyrene are based on short-term load conditions in accordance with typical ASTM test standards. As do most load bearing building materials, EPS foam insulation products creep under long-term, continuous load conditions and, in critical applications, this characteristic must be considered in design calculations. Design professionals should recall that greater strength properties are available from EPS foam by increasing density. Data that reflects deflection resulting from continuous, compressive load exposures for EPS insulation is available. " 2. Stress relaxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 3. "The compressive response of many foams is characterized by an initial linearly elastic regime which is terminated by instability. For open cell foams instability leads to localized buckling and collapse of zones of cells. Local collapse in these zones is terminated by contact between cell ligaments. In the process collapse spreads to neighboring cells hitherto intact. The spreading of collapse occurs at a well-defined load plateau and continues until most of the cells are thus affected when the material response regains stiffness once more. This type of three-regime compressive response was reproduced numerically by idealizing such foams to be assemblages of space-filling Kelvin cells. The onset of instability involves a long wavelength mode. It has been established by considering a fully periodic column of cells tall enough to accommodate this mode. The crushing response has been evaluated by considering finite size microsections which allow localized deformation to develop. This paper shows that the crushing stress can also be established from the local response of the fully periodic column of cells through an energy argument leading to a Maxwell-type construction. On the Crushing Stress of Open Cell Foams" Key word: creep With all the thickness, type, and tank weights/styles to be considered. I think it should be considered on a case by case basis and not used as a replacement for quality craftmanship. As mentioned, these materials do not behave in a tradional engineering theory, and given enough time, thickness, and weight could become unstable failing from localized compressive strain or by slip. I researched this topic time and time again, and could find no other application in which these materials were subjected to continual loading, and were the principal means for load transfer to the ground. Use at own risk....my recomendation would be to limit the thickness used." |
From: (simple copy and paste for your reference, may be out of context and duplicate of above)
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=1337487
3. Foam............WarrenG debated this to some length a few months ago. Prior to that discussion the subject had been on my mind, during the discussion over those couple of days, and ever since.
As I said last time, foam under a tank is a much debated concept, some say yes, others no. Though the concept sounds very sound, something raises the hairs on my neck about. Which is why I recended my stance before to relegate for more information before comming to a conclusion.
It is even split down the lines of manufacturers, with the Engineer's at Aqueon (All-glass) saying not to. And then you have the others that claim "I have always placed foam under my tank and its been fine" This is just plain poor logic, and one who's tank did not crack and spill water all over the floor can not tell what effect and to what degree the foam helped or hindered.
One of the main logical fallacies we as Reefers are prone to is the over utilization of observation through sight only. Cause and Effect, A=B, 1+2=3..........we draw observational inferences from limited statistical data through observation only and try to come up with catch all/stead fast rules to be governed by.
Most of the time, because of the scale and the degree of error to which we are working in we are safe, but as we get into larger and larger models (tanks), we begin to see our logic break down as the things we did not think to consider have an effect on the system. This is EXACTLY why we see so many people who are setting up their second or third tanks and have problems selecting the wrong pumps. As the stakes get larger, the circumstances are greater, and our delinquencies shown. This would be main point here. In small scale tanks, you can get away with murder as far as placement orientation, equipment selection you name it........on a bigger tank, if you don't select the right pump that is operating within its BEP range, you can end up with a poor preforming, expensive pump because we were using the same "rule of thumb" for a smaller tank than a big one or designing the system after buying the pump rather before. This is how I will comment on using foam underneath a tank.
In my research before, during and since the last discussion on the subject, I dug through each of my Mechanical Engineering textbooks looking for a similar application, researched hours of articles on the subject, even consulted with my peers who are also Mechanical Engineers on the subject, even going as far as to ask the wife of a friend who is a Materials Engineer with Lockheed Martin. All had the same response I have, "Maybe, but I wouldn't risk it."
Why? For the basic statics of the situation, most have a basic understanding of the subject, but there is a lot that is overlooked and brought into the equation when this material is introduced. The main problem with this discussion is: Nobody can really tell until it tested. You see, foam is a semi-rigid body and varies with different compositions. Its at the point that it is settled and compressed that concerns me. Discussions of dynamic loading, sheer strength of the two planes, a failure due to fatique have never been considered, especially factors of safety.
True, you may lessen a stress point or a discontinuity eliminating some of the stress on the bottom pane, but that may open up another set of problems that you may have not considered.
I found this quote in a preview of a journal article I that uses words other than my own.
"On the Crushing Stress of Open Cell Foams
The compressive response of many foams is characterized by an initial linearly elastic regime which is terminated by instability. For open cell foams instability leads to localized buckling and collapse of zones of cells. Local collapse in these zones is terminated by contact between cell ligaments. "
Of course, remember I have not defined which tanks we are speaking of. It seems to be current thought that it is accetable practice to place foam under acrylic tanks to ensure distributed loading. I could agree with this provided that the thickness was not extreme so as to bring about other problems. Think of the princess and the pea. Once she couldn't feel that pea under all those materess which compressed and took in all the feel of the pea, how stable do you think it was to shear loading? I digress.
In reefing the stakes get higher the farther you climb be it with livestock, expensive fish or larger tanks. There is always less room for error, and what applied before may not apply now. This is my main concern of the catch all of using "foam" and makes me nervous. Thicknesses, densities, sizes change which change all of the rules. For instance is a chart I made up quickly to illustrate the loading on the rims of glass tanks. As you can see, the psi increase with tank size.
It shows the stakes get larger as the tank gets bigger, so one "catch all" rule has the potential for mistake, it is up to the individual to make that call for themselves and what makes them more comfortable.
My answer on foam......I don't know as semi-rigid bodies are unpredictable, especially when the application for the material can not be found elsewhere.
Water pushes in all directions, not just down which is why spheres are best in high pressure depths. The Normal force is force that is straight down. In your tank, the water is always pushing out in every direction, trying to split the joints to "find its lowest point".
This is what I have discovered in my research on the subject and thought I would share it with you guys. This is my .02, please use it to ponder to make your own decision.
Very interesting. When i arrived the tank was filled with water (wanted to check that out) and what do you know...sitting on a pad of blue foam. He said he has had it there since he set it up...almost a year. I will probably not use it when i set it back up.
Anyway, appears the tank has made it to Texas safely. Will set it up and do the water test before I do anything else. Thanks for the recommendations, ended up taking off my bed cover and loading the tank itself in my bed on that piece of foam. Ride was pretty smooth most of the way and the trucks suspension was much more forgiving that the trailers. Brought the stand and sump back on the trailer. Thanks to all for the input.
Anyway, appears the tank has made it to Texas safely. Will set it up and do the water test before I do anything else. Thanks for the recommendations, ended up taking off my bed cover and loading the tank itself in my bed on that piece of foam. Ride was pretty smooth most of the way and the trucks suspension was much more forgiving that the trailers. Brought the stand and sump back on the trailer. Thanks to all for the input.
I'm not sure what to do. So much conflicting info. All I know is Tank failure = 350/G upgrade for me.
