I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.
My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.
Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?
i
Full.... no problem if the truck can handle the weight.
Empty... no problem
Half full... could be a big problem if no baffles. Brake way, way, way
earlier and at a slower rate. Same for acceleration. Accelerate slowly.
For turns slow way ahead, and wait until fully straightened out before
accelerating. Slow at 3-4 times the distances as you would normally start
braking. Keep the tank as low as possible. In the bed not as big a deal as
if its up on a stand.
You need to THINK about your driving while you are hauling liquids in a
single tank.
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:53:49 -0800 (PST), the infamous John Martin
Iggy used the word "may". "May" = "slosh", right?
--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
I wouldn't worry about it much at all. They make 500 gallon poly tanks
that are designed to sit in a pickup bed and are commonly used for
construction and agricultural applications. These tanks do not have
baffles in them and you don't see all the trucks carrying them upside
down in ditches.
500 gal of water is 4,170 lbs, a scooch over 2 tons.
500 gal gas, about 3,060
500 gal diesel about 3,500
Those are some pickups...
JR
Dweller in the cellar
wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."
Yep. I hauled a load of landscape stones a few years ago in my '96 F350
single-track. Then we hit a few garage sales on the way home.
Later calculated the load at 3750 lbs. Could have easily hauled more if
the tires could handle it
Do it all the time. 170 gallons of water will be about 1,400 pounds. On
a 3/4 tone you will have all you want PLUS.
You want to haul it FULL or empty. Anything in between and you will have
problems. Sloshing causes MAJOR problems.
Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:25:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Some decades ago. the Air Force had some problems with their new
B-52s, and the new engines they put in them. Seems airplanes were
"randomly" falling out of the sky. Turns out to be only under some
conditions: namely, when half full of fuel, during touch and go
exercises. When the throttles were pushed to the max, the new engines
spooled up faster causing fuel to slosh back, then forward, then back
- moving the center of gravity faster than the pilots could react
before "premature termination of flight operations at the air ground
interface".
The quick fix solution was to put a 'stop' at the old power
settings, to keep pilots from adding too much throttle. Eventually,
they changed/improved the tank baffles.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
I have a little experience hauling liquid as I used to drive a milk tanker.
With that rig the biggest danger was when the tank was half full. We had a
guy swerve to miss a dog on a flat and level country road and rolled the
truck.
With your tank as others have mentioned the more head space you have the
worse the kinetic forces are going to be. You also have to be concerned
this time of year with slick roads, especially at intersections.
You can come to a stop and then the slosh will cause you to slide, so if you
can wait for a day when the roads are dry that might be a good idea.
The up side to your plan is that you only have 170 gallons so you will
probably be OK if you don't make any radical turns or quick stops.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:33:43 -0600, Ignoramus18200
These balls will reduce sloshing at the cost of a bit of capacity, not
sure what they cost:
http://www.kentuckytank.com/id105.html
http://www.google.com/patents?idqEfAAAAEBAJ&printsec «stract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&fúlse
...maybe you can get a deal on a bunch of wiffle balls!
I seek the basic tanks are not very expensive:
http://plastic-mart.com/class.php?item 1
I wouldn't want 100+ gallons of water sloshing around on a snowy or
icy road... of course milk trucks have no option-- adding baffles
makes them into a butter churn.
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:33:43 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus18200
It does. That's 170 x 8.345404 pounds (water) or 1419 pounds, roughly
3/4 of a ton of goosey, movable cargo.
Drive slowly and carefully, especially if it's not full. Half-full
tanks can slosh a lot more and tip you more easily if you're not ready
for it. Liquid is a lot harder to predict than solid cargo. I've
experienced that from occasionally moving barrels and tanks of liquid
via hand trucks.
How far are you going, and in what traffic situations? I suggest slow
driving and keeping your emergency flashers on for the duration if you
have any traffic at all.
No, I think 50 gallons or so is my current record.
I've seen hot-tub-equipped limos driving down the street in Vegas
before. Examples: http://www.hottublimo.com/gallery.html
http://fwd4.me/7qE , http://fwd4.me/7qG . imagine having to slam on
your brakes and sending 400 gallons of water + your clients over the
roof and into the intersection! <g>
--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Half full: 722 pounds, say moving at 1 Hz. Say it sloshes one foot
high, and that 10% of the mass is in that slosh. 72 pound, one foot
hit, is only 72 foot-pounds of energy. But at 1 Hz, it's a 72 pound
dumbell on a 1 foot radius, or 210 foot-pounds/sec^2. At 2 Hz, not an
unreasonable guess, it becomes 840 foot-pounds/sec^2 or ... how many
HP is that? Where do the slugs go? This could easily slosh at 10 Hz
with the little we know and 21,000 foot-pounds/sec^2 is just a
frightenly huge number, even though I know I have the units wrong and
it's all back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Can you imagine a 72 pound iron casting with a two inch milling bit
jammed in it, on a milling machine table, swinging out of control, at
600 rpm, which is 10 Hz? I'd scat my pants before I scat outta there.
It would rip a 20 HP mill out of its foundations. That's what a 72
pound dumbell on a 1 foot radius is. It's ... scary.
Somewhere betwen 1 and 10 Hz there's going to be a truck suspension
resonance.
722 lbf @ 32 ft/sec^2 is about 22 slugs.
Whatever is in there, it had better be full, or emptied, like the
others said. That's what I'm thinkin'.
Douglas (Dana) Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
"Use paper for the math, or plan on throwing away the first part made"
On Dec 10, 5:57 pm, The Dougster <OK, it was me> wrote:
I've driven scooters. I've driven trucks. I've never driven a trailer
except to park it. I've owned cars and scooters and mopeds. So, I
really don't know, it's all a numbers game to me.
And...I got my license back Friday. Woohoo! Now I can buy a load of
bricks at Home Depot, rent one of their trucks, go move a friend into
a new apartment, and return the bricks "because they didn't fit", all
in one day. *snork*
Doug
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.