230 gallon in-wall, room divider, reef build

[MarsRover]

I would be furious as well, but agree with that the best course of action is to add a support and call it a day. My tank was built by AGE and it came with a chip in the corner of the acrylic eurobrace. I got nowhere with my request for a fix and ultimately decided to suck it up and accept the tank as is. (And I am a litigator so suing would not have cost much other than the time and bother of going through it, but its just sooo much time and bother and would have delayed my build for at least a year win or lose). 4 years later, it is solid so their assurances that the defect would not affect performance has so far proved correct. Other than that though, I am happy with the build quality and particularly like the PVC bottom -- its bulletproof and allowed me to drill 6 holes for my closed loop without any concerns of failure. I had my contractor build a wood stand so I did not have to deal with AGE's metal stand.

One question about your situation (lawyer, not engineer here). How is it that the stand deflects more than the tank? Doesn't the weight of the tank and the deflection of the bottom panel cause the cross-bar of stand to deflect? If so the stand wouldn't deflect more than the tank. (I must be missing some concept here.)

And whatever the answer to that question, if the tank is not deflecting, does that mean the bottom panel as constructed is strong enough to hold the water perfect support?

I'll be PM'ing you shortly.

Interesting (though not surprising to me at this juncture) that you too had a poor customer experience with A.G.E!

As for my situation, I don't make a lot of money working for NASA. In fact, i started at the same salary as my friends did who are living in cheaper-cost-of-living areas on the east coast. It took me a long time to save up for this tank and i don't have the money to purchase another one. I think i have a reasonably good case based on what i have said before about implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness. It is going to be very expensive to fix this and even more expensive if it fails fully. Just renting the jacks to lift the horizontal beams back to undeflected is going to be expensive, not to mention a welder to weld in place while this thing hangs over them.

As for your other questions, read my post #355. I must have been typing it when you responded.

Another reason why the top beam of the stand is gapping so much is because the vertical legs are also bending. They are actually in compressive failure based on my calculations. This actually makes the stand much weaker since the first bending mode of the legs has already begun. Its even scarier that you can SEE them being bent, and at least once a day i can hear the tank releasing stress with an audible "tick" "tick".

The steal is a different sizing then used on your stand. If that steal was used you might not have the sag. I say might not.

This is likely accurate. I can't say definitively because i have not run the analysis but based on my intuition of the present situation, deflection would be significantly decreased and strength would be significantly increased.

 

[jsker]

This is a very good point! I should have run the calcs on delivery. But to be honest, my mind set at the time was "for all this money, and all their hype" i didn't even think about it. I trusted them. I also assumed they HAD to have engineers considering how dangerous these things are....I was wrong. I suspect many other of their customers who are not engineers would never notice.

As for the tank being compromised, yes, it is compromised.

Tiny gap, big gap, doesn't matter. The center of the tank is floating in the air so much so that it no longer contacts the support (stand), allowing light to pass through.

Just for fun, lets ignore for a second that by A.G.E's warranty on their website and bill of sale, the tank is compromised and lets take a look at the mechanics.

With the center of the tank floating, this is now the situation of the tank:

As you can see, in this photo, the tank is what engineers call "simply supported". Meaning it only has supports on the edges, none in the center. This allows the center of the beam to deflect downward, causing internal stresses and strains in the beam. Now, in this photo, the tank has been reduced to a simple beam. Regardless, this is still what is happening to my tank.


As you pointed out, the tank is built of more than just glass. Because the tank has steel, glass, PVC, and silicone holding it all together, engineers call this a "composite beam" structure.

I'm going to visually-exaggerate all of this so you can see what i'm talking about.

What is happening to the tank is obviously on a scale that the naked eye cannot see. If you could see it, the glass/tank likely would be stressed to the point where it has already failed. Regardless, it is definitely still happening this way @Skep18 can back me up on this I'm sure. I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but all engineers should be learning this in 1st/2nd year mechanics of materials in school.

When you have a composite structure, the layers that are glued together will bend/deflect based on their relative stiffnesses and their location in the bending-composite-beam.

That means that each individual layers' amount of bending is different from other layers, depending on how stiff each material is relative to each other.

When you have a non-ridgid adhesive, such as silicone, connecting the rigid materials, the shear between the different rigid-materials it is holding together is transferred between the materials through the silicone.

You can look at it like this:

Because the glass and the metal bend different amounts (metal is much more "bendy" than glass) the silicone layer in between them, stuck to glass on one side and stuck to the metal on the other side holding them together (red zoom-in circle), has to stretch between this bending difference between the metal and the glass.

If you zoom in again (green zoom-in circle) so far that you can view just a single square of silicone in this silicone layer, the top of the square only stretches a little bit (with the glass) and the bottom of the square stretches more (with the metal). Engineers are very familiar with this stress state called "Shear".

Because the center of the tank is no longer supported (you can see light passing through between the top of the stand and the bottom of the tank, so it truly is floating), the composite-beam-tank-system now exists in the simply supported stress state regime (previously shown above).

To some unknown degree (at this time), it is bending as i have shown above. Thus to some unknown degree, the silicone holding the tank together is stressed beyond what was intended.

This is precisely why (whether they know it or not) A.G.E's warranty states that all edges of the tank must be supported by the stand at all times or else their warranty is void.

Feel free to keep asking questions.

This is some good stuff!!

 

[MarsRover]

I have a 300 gallon AGE tank and stand. the tank is 77x30x30 and has Two vertical supports on each side between the ends so in essence 8 legs so I"m not worried at all about having your issue. But do find it weird they didn't put a center support/leg in for you. I love my tank and would buy from them again in a heartbeat but honestly am a little surprised on their choices with your stand.

Can you show us a picture? I'd be interested in running a simulation on your stand/tank. When did you purchase it? Your dimensions are almost exactly the same as mine but i'm not following what you mean by 8 legs? It depends where those legs are located for it to be properly contributing to preventing the situation that i am in.

 

[MarsRover]

This is some good stuff!!

Haha thank you!

I ran all this stuff by my boss at work and he wants me to post my analysis on our internal "lessons learned" pages for all to see and learn from. When i get all this court garbage dealt with, and hopefully walk away from it with money to fix this, i plan to have a "group project" with my team at work, figuring out the best way to resolve this situation. This is literally the type of thing we do at NASA.

 

[ihavecrabs]

Luckily, Wells Fargo said they will investigate this issue for me and can issue a refund if found to be as i say it is.

I hope Wells Fargo comes through on this for you.

Can I suggest also starting a thread (copy and paste the important high level details) on the Vendor Feedback thread and then link to the details here. It would be good for people to know what they are getting into and have an opportunity to investigate themselves before diving head first into a purchase like this.

 

[jsker]

I'll be PM'ing you shortly.

Interesting (though not surprising to me at this juncture) that you too had a poor customer experience with A.G.E!

As for my situation, I don't make a lot of money working for NASA. In fact, i started at the same salary as my friends did who are living in cheaper-cost-of-living areas on the east coast. It took me a long time to save up for this tank and i don't have the money to purchase another one. I think i have a reasonably good case based on what i have said before about implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness. It is going to be very expensive to fix this and even more expensive if it fails fully. Just renting the jacks to lift the horizontal beams back to undeflected is going to be expensive, not to mention a welder to weld in place while this thing hangs over them.

As for your other questions, read my post #355. I must have been typing it when you responded.

Another reason why the top beam of the stand is gapping so much is because the vertical legs are also bending. They are actually in compressive failure based on my calculations. This actually makes the stand much weaker since the first bending mode of the legs has already begun. Its even scarier that you can SEE them being bent, and at least once a day i can hear the tank releasing stress with an audible "tick" "tick".



This is likely accurate. I can't say definitively because i have not run the analysis but based on my intuition of the present situation, deflection would be significantly decreased and strength would be significantly increased.

I am a wood guy, and the longer the span, the thicker the runner/joist should be without a center support. That also is common knowledge if someone has been building enough out of any material.

Haha thank you!

I ran all this stuff by my boss at work and he wants me to post my analysis on our internal "lessons learned" pages for all to see and learn from. When i get all this court garbage dealt with, and hopefully walk away from it with money to fix this, i plan to have a "group project" with my team at work, figuring out the best way to resolve this situation. This is literally the type of thing we do at NASA.

Hint, hint

Okay, complete post on my A.G.E tank/stand issue. The information in this post is either fact of my own situation, or public record. (@chefjpaul @Skep18 @KingJason)

Ever since i got the tank, i noticed a "tick" "tick" settling sounding noise coming from it every once in a while. It was clear it was due to the loading but i figured it might be the "leveling feet" (just upside down hex head structural bolts) being back driven by the load on them or the plywood deck on the top of the stand settling out any residual stresses etc... I reported this to Chris Brenes, Acrylic and glass exhibits / The Fish Gallery (AGE) sales rep, who didn't really make much of it so i let it go.

Fast forward to more recently. While measuring my home/tank/stand to build my lower cabinets, i noticed this:

Video showing light coming through, from the other side of the tank, between the bottom of the tank and the top of the stand deck:


Video showing the sagging PVC bottom of the tank. The edge of the PVC sheet is visible between the tank steel bracing and the top deck of the stand....


Video showing me pulling out a full sheet of paper i inserted between the tank and the stand. I can actually push this paper all the way through to the other side....


Edges of PVC tank bottom showing under the tank bracing...

Light shining through between the bottom of the tank and the top deck of the stand...

Measuring the gapping between the tank and stand...

So, basically, not good... I have ~ 4mm deflection. I decided to do hand calcs to see what the situation was with the stand, as built, assuming a very non-conservative (i.e. not safe because it is too small!) design load of the dry weight of the tank, plus the weight of saltwater to fill it.

In this situation, 100% fixity cannot be assumed! So the true situation exists somewhere in between 0%-100% fixity. Regardless, the safety factor in the best case, 100% fixity, is still MUCH MUCH too low for something that risks this level of hazard to life and property!

Okay, so for @Skep18 this probably makes loads of sense from statics and mech. of materials class, but for the rest of you, the next bit is probably better. I decided that hand calcs show a bad situation but it ultimately ignores the angled pieces between the vertical legs etc... so finite element analysis is an easier way to communicate the problem more accurately. So i built the stand in CAD and ran an FEA:

My setup: Feet are fully fixed. Top of stand is holding the weight of the dry tank, the saltwater to fill that tank, and the deck of plywood that sits on top of the stand, under the tank. No rocks, no equipment, nothing else.

Here is the displacement with visual-magnification factor set to 1x. You can see max deflection is 0.128in (3.2512mm). Scroll back up to my previous photos and you will see i am measuring 4mm. This is the difference between a "perfect" stand (no welds, no holes, just magically this structure exists in perfect world) and real life. This discrepancy is, in part, EXACTLY one of the reasons when designing things engineers add additional safety factor to designs. Explanation of safety factor is next.

Safety factors: A safety factor of 1 means the structure is just barely designed to hold the load you're putting on it. Factor of safety of 2 means the structure is designed to hold twice the load you're going to put on it. I.e. safety factors equal are a multiplier on the intended load that something can withstand).

Safety factor to yield: "Yielding" is an engineer's way of saying "permanently bent". It is when you bend something and it begins to deform plastically, meaning, you bend it, you let go, and it does NOT go back into its original shape: it yielded/ plastically deformed (vs elastically deformed like a rubber band, which goes right back to where it was before you bent it). Generally speaking, yielding is considered failure in almost all engineering disciplines.

For some perspective:

• Flight Spacecraft structures have design factors of safety to yield around 1.5 (they are EXTENSIVELY proof tested and post test analyzed with penetrating dyes, xray, etc... and only made from the highest grade materials available)
• For fixtures that hold personnel or flight hardware, the safety factors have to be 3.5 to yield and 5 to ultimate strength.

As for other things: EngineeringToolbox provides some good numbers:


Considering we are talking about massive tanks, massive amounts of water, and putting it into peoples homes who then put massive amounts of money and time into them, I'd hazard a guess that if this was controlled by US code, the required safety factors for stands on tanks >100 gallons would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of 2.5 to 5.


Stress: Now that i explained safety factors, let see what safety factor the simulation says the stand has to the weight of just the tank, the salt water to fill it, and the plywood top deck of the stand:

So, this is a little more complex to understand fully, so i'll try my best to keep you engaged as i explain: There is exists a small nodal region near where the angle supports meet the structure that's red. Stress level of 17.7 ksi. This might be an artifact of the simulation and geometry so lets give A.G.E the benefit of the doubt and ignore that. Everyone would agree that yellow is definitely in this structure though: 13.2886 ksi. The compressive yield strength of A36, common structural steel for square tube, is 22ksi (MATWEB). To calculate safety factor, we take the strength of the material and divide it by the max stress. Thus, if our stress is only half of the max strength of the material, then we have a nice safety factor of 2! So for this situation, we say our max stress is 13.2886 ksi (yellow color). And the material has a strength of 22ksi.

22ksi/13.2886ksi = 1.655 safety factor. In aerospace, we rarely have safety factors this low. And aerospace carries some of the lowest safety factors of ALL engineering. The reason why: we have to launch it into space so if it is too heavy, it won't get off the ground. So how does NASA get away with flying super expensive components with low safety factors? We test test test test test these pieces like crazy, then we analyze them like crazy with things like xrays etc.. to ensure that have testing them, they aren't damaged internally. Then we feel statistically safe they will perform in flight. This process is very expensive, hence why our projects cost so darn much. The cost and time to do this doesn't make sense for things like cars, tables, aquariums, so you over design them with a fat safety factor.

A safety factor of 1.655 on something that lives in peoples homes, exists in a corrosive environment (saltwater...), a dynamic environment (water motion), and risks serious hard to life and property, is insufficient and grossly negligent.

I emailed all this info to A.G.E, and the owner of The Fish Gallery / Acrylic and Glass Exhibits, Roger S Degregori (all this info is public fyi), told me that i am "over analyzing" this. We talked over the phone a few times and he admits that they have never engineered anything it is just based on his experience. He even went so far as to say he has a "sixth sense" for things like this. Kept saying if he had "seen anything concerning when [he] came to deliver the tank personally to my home he wouldn't have left it there risking failure". I repeatedly try to explain to him this isn't about a bad batch of metal or bad welds, it is about it just being under designed. He then went on to start blaming things i may have done etc... I don't want to go too far into this part of the issue. Suffice it to say, A.G.E takes responsibility for the failing stand and wants to try and "fix" it by either having me design a leg for them to make and on my time and dollar i'd have to attach it to the stand myself, OR, they send me a new stand and i have to break down my tank, which has that entire rock structure cemented to the overflow box, and swap it all out myself.... uhhh no thanks... not going to let them give it another "good ol' college try" at making a stand for me since by their owner's admission: no one over there knows how to use a calculator to design anything.

So now, now there is the issue of the tank. The center of the length of the tank is no longer supported, all the way across its width. As per A.G.E's warranty on their website:
http://www.acrylicandglassexhibits.com/About-Us



Thus, if this situation had been caused by another stand, the warranty on the tank would be null and void.

Multiple times i reiterated these points via email and over the phone:



Based on the above points, and the situation of my stand/tank, someone would be VERY VERY hard pressed to prove the joints of the tank have not been stressed beyond intent. Hence why this would void A.G.E warranty (if this hadn't been caused by AGE in the first place). Even with all of this, Roger maintains that because it is holding water presently, the tank is fine because it is built like “a brick s***house” (not a technical term so I have no idea what that means....). Roger also says that he “can’t promise it won’t break tomorrow” and he can’t show me any form of proof that it’s fine. I just have to take his unqualified-mechanical “word” for it.....

As everyone on here knows, even with a full refund, I have a LONG and likely expensive road ahead of me. I can't touch the stand to support it temporarily, and i can't go the route of designing something FOR AGE to fix this mess because my attorney has advised me not to as it risks producing a lack in clarity of culpability should damages need to be recouped legally. Makes sense.

I have found that Roger's attorney, or at least his attorney in a case in Texas court, is someone with the same last name (found via HCDistrictclerk.com case search). So it likely won't cost him to defend himself in court....which is probably why he is so brazen with me about not making good on their warranty, but I'm not worried.


On top of all of this, ever since i got the tank, and have been looking at other starphire tanks in person, i'm pretty sure i also didn't get the starphire glass i paid for on all sides:
Photo of my AGE glass edge on, camera right up against the cut edge of the glass with flash on:

A.G.E Glass again:

OCEANIC GLASS true starphire: edge on, camera right up against the cut edge of the glass with flash on:

OCEANIC GLASS (true starphire):

I have also done a similar FEA analysis on @KingJason 's tank stand. His deflection is much better than mine. Basically zero. But it looks like his safety factors are also around 1.5.... and his tank is nearly twice the size of mine

I'd hate to see what happens in an earthquake with our tanks....


....wonder if anyone actually will read all of this.... but this is why i now say NEVER BUY a tank from Acrylic and Glass Exhibits, The Fish Gallery, or anyone, for that matter,who doesn't say what the safety factor is on their stands.....especially if their response to that question is "huh?” ......ugh





What would you want if you found yourself in this situation?





..

This is a very good point! I should have run the calcs on delivery. But to be honest, my mind set at the time was "for all this money, and all their hype" i didn't even think about it. I trusted them. I also assumed they HAD to have engineers considering how dangerous these things are....I was wrong. I suspect many other of their customers who are not engineers would never notice.

As for the tank being compromised, yes, it is compromised.

Tiny gap, big gap, doesn't matter. The center of the tank is floating in the air so much so that it no longer contacts the support (stand), allowing light to pass through.

Just for fun, lets ignore for a second that by A.G.E's warranty on their website and bill of sale, the tank is compromised and lets take a look at the mechanics.

With the center of the tank floating, this is now the situation of the tank:

As you can see, in this photo, the tank is what engineers call "simply supported". Meaning it only has supports on the edges, none in the center. This allows the center of the beam to deflect downward, causing internal stresses and strains in the beam. Now, in this photo, the tank has been reduced to a simple beam. Regardless, this is still what is happening to my tank.


As you pointed out, the tank is built of more than just glass. Because the tank has steel, glass, PVC, and silicone holding it all together, engineers call this a "composite beam" structure.

I'm going to visually-exaggerate all of this so you can see what i'm talking about.

What is happening to the tank is obviously on a scale that the naked eye cannot see. If you could see it, the glass/tank likely would be stressed to the point where it has already failed. Regardless, it is definitely still happening this way @Skep18 can back me up on this I'm sure. I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but all engineers should be learning this in 1st/2nd year mechanics of materials in school.

When you have a composite structure, the layers that are glued together will bend/deflect based on their relative stiffnesses and their location in the bending-composite-beam.

That means that each individual layers' amount of bending is different from other layers, depending on how stiff each material is relative to each other.

When you have a non-ridgid adhesive, such as silicone, connecting the rigid materials, the shear between the different rigid-materials it is holding together is transferred between the materials through the silicone.

You can look at it like this:

Because the glass and the metal bend different amounts (metal is much more "bendy" than glass) the silicone layer in between them, stuck to glass on one side and stuck to the metal on the other side holding them together (red zoom-in circle), has to stretch between this bending difference between the metal and the glass.

If you zoom in again (green zoom-in circle) so far that you can view just a single square of silicone in this silicone layer, the top of the square only stretches a little bit (with the glass) and the bottom of the square stretches more (with the metal). Engineers are very familiar with this stress state called "Shear".

Because the center of the tank is no longer supported (you can see light passing through between the top of the stand and the bottom of the tank, so it truly is floating), the composite-beam-tank-system now exists in the simply supported stress state regime (previously shown above).

To some unknown degree (at this time), it is bending as i have shown above. Thus to some unknown degree, the silicone holding the tank together is stressed beyond what was intended.

This is precisely why (whether they know it or not) A.G.E's warranty states that all edges of the tank must be supported by the stand at all times or else their warranty is void.

Feel free to keep asking questions.

This would make for great article materiale here also.

 

[MarsRover]

I am a wood guy, and the longer the span, the thicker the runner/joist should be without a center support. That also is common knowledge if someone has been building enough out of any material.

Yes, you would think Roger's self-proclaimed "6th sense" would have told him this....

This would make for great article materiale here also.

When i write up my article for work, i will ask my boss if i can also share it with the site. I'd be kinda cool to get an "article contributor" flag

I think all people should be able to do basic math. As an engineer i feel it is important to empowering consumers to understand better what engineers do and be able to better protect themselves against companies who all too often hide behind the obfuscation of company names etc...

 

[MarsRover]

I hope Wells Fargo comes through on this for you.

Can I suggest also starting a thread (copy and paste the important high level details) on the Vendor Feedback thread and then link to the details here. It would be good for people to know what they are getting into and have an opportunity to investigate themselves before diving head first into a purchase like this.

I read in the vendor feedback area at one point that people aren't supposed to comment until things are resolved with the vendor or something like that.

But seeing that you are a reef2reef high powered individual yourself, i will make a point of doing this this weekend. Thank you

 

[ihavecrabs]

I read in the vendor feedback area at one point that people aren't supposed to comment until things are resolved with the vendor or something like that.

But seeing that you are a reef2reef high powered individual yourself, i will make a point of doing this this weekend. Thank you

I'm no admin [emoji23]

Maybe follow the recommendation once all is said and done.

Following along and fingers crossed for you.

 

[AlexStinson]

That's terrible. I have a tank/stand coming from another manufacturer, 6' long and they refused to build it without center supports.

 

[lolgranny]

This is a very good point! I should have run the calcs on delivery. But to be honest, my mind set at the time was "for all this money, and all their hype" i didn't even think about it. I trusted them. I also assumed they HAD to have engineers considering how dangerous these things are....I was wrong. I suspect many other of their customers who are not engineers would never notice.

As for the tank being compromised, yes, it is compromised.

Tiny gap, big gap, doesn't matter. The center of the tank is floating in the air so much so that it no longer contacts the support (stand), allowing light to pass through.

Just for fun, lets ignore for a second that by A.G.E's warranty on their website and bill of sale, the tank is compromised and lets take a look at the mechanics.

With the center of the tank floating, this is now the situation of the tank:

As you can see, in this photo, the tank is what engineers call "simply supported". Meaning it only has supports on the edges, none in the center. This allows the center of the beam to deflect downward, causing internal stresses and strains in the beam. Now, in this photo, the tank has been reduced to a simple beam. Regardless, this is still what is happening to my tank.


As you pointed out, the tank is built of more than just glass. Because the tank has steel, glass, PVC, and silicone holding it all together, engineers call this a "composite beam" structure.

I'm going to visually-exaggerate all of this so you can see what i'm talking about.

What is happening to the tank is obviously on a scale that the naked eye cannot see. If you could see it, the glass/tank likely would be stressed to the point where it has already failed. Regardless, it is definitely still happening this way @Skep18 can back me up on this I'm sure. I don't know what kind of engineer you are, but all engineers should be learning this in 1st/2nd year mechanics of materials in school.

When you have a composite structure, the layers that are glued together will bend/deflect based on their relative stiffnesses and their location in the bending-composite-beam.

That means that each individual layers' amount of bending is different from other layers, depending on how stiff each material is relative to each other.

When you have a non-ridgid adhesive, such as silicone, connecting the rigid materials, the shear between the different rigid-materials it is holding together is transferred between the materials through the silicone.

You can look at it like this:

Because the glass and the metal bend different amounts (metal is much more "bendy" than glass) the silicone layer in between them, stuck to glass on one side and stuck to the metal on the other side holding them together (red zoom-in circle), has to stretch between this bending difference between the metal and the glass.

If you zoom in again (green zoom-in circle) so far that you can view just a single square of silicone in this silicone layer, the top of the square only stretches a little bit (with the glass) and the bottom of the square stretches more (with the metal). Engineers are very familiar with this stress state called "Shear".

Because the center of the tank is no longer supported (you can see light passing through between the top of the stand and the bottom of the tank, so it truly is floating), the composite-beam-tank-system now exists in the simply supported stress state regime (previously shown above).

To some unknown degree (at this time), it is bending as i have shown above. Thus to some unknown degree, the silicone holding the tank together is stressed beyond what was intended.

This is precisely why (whether they know it or not) A.G.E's warranty states that all edges of the tank must be supported by the stand at all times or else their warranty is void.

Feel free to keep asking questions.

You’re right about wanting to trust a company like that or any big company for that matter. Every single company whether big or small, a hundred dollars spent or 100k spent make mistakes. Being in your position and dealing with things like this you should have done your Due diligence. It’s just like if you were to have a house built and you’re a contractor. You want to double check things like this. That hour you would have spend would have saved you all this headache.

So this post is very technical and complicated. All your graphs, research, and calculations are very interesting. I’m more of a simple mechanic who usually works on things the engineers design. I really believe you are over thinking so much of this. I can see how you get your conclusions, but I believe the fix is easier than you are suggesting and would outlast your lifetime and more. A simple leveling and bracing would solve your issues in the most efficient time and effect way. I can see getting the money back for the stand which is clearly the issue, but the tank would still last a very long time once the issue is resolved. So I don’t see a reason to be reimbursed for that. Regardless good luck my friend.

 

[MarsRover]

That's terrible. I have a tank/stand coming from another manufacturer, 6' long and they refused to build it without center supports.

Feel free to send me all the dimensions and i can run an analysis for you.

You’re right about wanting to trust a company like that or any big company for that matter. Every single company whether big or small, a hundred dollars spent or 100k spent make mistakes. Being in your position and dealing with things like this you should have done your Due diligence. It’s just like if you were to have a house built and you’re a contractor. You want to double check things like this. That hour you would have spend would have saved you all this headache.

So this post is very technical and complicated. All your graphs, research, and calculations are very interesting. I’m more of a simple mechanic who usually works on things the engineers design. I really believe you are over thinking so much of this. I can see how you get your conclusions, but I believe the fix is easier than you are suggesting and would outlast your lifetime and more. A simple leveling and bracing would solve your issues in the most efficient time and effect way. I can see getting the money back for the stand which is clearly the issue, but the tank would still last a very long time once the issue is resolved. So I don’t see a reason to be reimbursed for that. Regardless good luck my friend.

I appreciate your opinion and do not wish to discourage you from questioning the validity of my analysis. But attempting to NOT sound argumentative:

Respectfully, is this how you feel about airline companies? Car companies? It is the passenger's responsibility to ensure the plane or car was designed right/safe? Bridges?

Pretty sure there are regulations and laws in place for this exact reason. It's funny that people are saying this is "over complex" and "over analyzed". Most people are not knowledgeable enough to do the analysis themselves. I just happen to be.

These are actually really basic engineering calculations that EVERY 2nd year engineering student should know how to do in their sleep. Doing a true analysis of the situation is not over/under anything. Fact is fact. These are the same calculations used for almost everything you drive/sit/walk/fly on.

I think I can speak for almost everyone with family members living around their tanks when I say that I expect my $5000 tank to be designed / engineered not to fail.

 

[lolgranny]

Feel free to send me all the dimensions and i can run an analysis for you.



I appreciate your opinion and do not wish to discourage you from questioning the validity of my analysis. But attempting to NOT sound argumentative:

Respectfully, is this how you feel about airline companies? Car companies? It is the passenger's responsibility to ensure the plane or car was designed right/safe? Bridges?

Pretty sure there are regulations and laws in place for this exact reason. It's funny that people are saying this is "over complex" and "over analyzed". Most people are not knowledgeable enough to do the analysis themselves. I just happen to be.

These are actually really basic engineering calculations that EVERY 2nd year engineering student should know how to do in their sleep. Doing a true analysis of the situation is not over/under anything. Fact is fact. These are the same calculations used for almost everything you drive/sit/walk/fly on.

I think I can speak for almost everyone with family members living around their tanks when I say that I expect my $5000 tank to be designed / engineered not to fail.

I’m not questioning your analysis,, you’re much smarter then me in this area and I agree with you about the stand as said earlier

Yes it is how I feel about many companies. Do you not? Companies all make mistakes, ALL of them. Airlines have failures which result in deaths. Cars have failures and even with regulations some get overlooked. Every manufacturer has had these. Vettes had steering wheels lock, Honda’s had cars accelerate on people... and so on. So no, even Fortune 500 companies have mess ups.

Your tanks not failing you, the stand is.

 

[MarsRover]

I’m not questioning your analysis,, you’re much smarter then me in this area and I agree with you about the stand as said earlier

Yes it is how I feel about many companies. Do you not? Companies all make mistakes, ALL of them. Airlines have failures which result in deaths. Cars have failures and even with regulations some get overlooked. Every manufacturer has had these. Vettes had steering wheels lock, Honda’s had cars accelerate on people... and so on. So no, even Fortune 500 companies have mess ups.

Your tanks not failing you, the stand is.

First and foremost, please do not claim i am smarter than you. There is nothing factual we can base this judgement on. I have simply dedicated my life to being educated and knowledgable in my tradecraft. You very well could be "smarter" than me in your tradecraft.

I do agree companies and engineers make mistakes. 100% without a doubt. Heck, look at Facebook, southwest, delta, etc... yikes!

The difference with your examples, IMHO, is simply that they all HAVE engineers and address safety as one of the primary concerns. A lot of failures in those regions are about either overlooked, or material quality failure, or inaccurate modeling of the real life situation. As i had said in previous posts, this is precisely why engineers place safety factors on their designs. The larger the safety factor, the less LIKELY it is to fail. There are no guarantees with entropy (real life). Companies designing planes and spacecraft, along with intensive testing, perform statistical wagering, balancing reliability and the ability to perform the task. Getting to space is hard, so we physically cannot launch all parts with a 5x safety factor. That is why on our low safety factor parts we have EXTENSIVE procedures for testing and post test analysis on the part to ensure it is good for it's purpose in space.

Buildings, bridges, stands, etc... static consumer products where the risk to life and property are great, are ALL legally designed with very large safety factors.

This stand, wasn't designed. There is no analysis. That is negligence considering, and i don't think anyone would argue this next point, that these tanks can kill you.

As for the tank, I never said it was failing... yet.... I said it was compromised. It has been stressed beyond what was intended by the maker and thus its integrity is now compromised. Every lawyer and engineer i have spoken to thus far (2 and 5 respectively) agree with my position but you are of course welcome to disagree with us. Ultimately, and unfortunately, a judge will have to decide.

 

[AlexStinson]

Feel free to send me all the dimensions and i can run an analysis for you.



I appreciate your opinion and do not wish to discourage you from questioning the validity of my analysis. But attempting to NOT sound argumentative:

Respectfully, is this how you feel about airline companies? Car companies? It is the passenger's responsibility to ensure the plane or car was designed right/safe? Bridges?

Pretty sure there are regulations and laws in place for this exact reason. It's funny that people are saying this is "over complex" and "over analyzed". Most people are not knowledgeable enough to do the analysis themselves. I just happen to be.

These are actually really basic engineering calculations that EVERY 2nd year engineering student should know how to do in their sleep. Doing a true analysis of the situation is not over/under anything. Fact is fact. These are the same calculations used for almost everything you drive/sit/walk/fly on.

I think I can speak for almost everyone with family members living around their tanks when I say that I expect my $5000 tank to be designed / engineered not to fail.

My stand is 72x36x36 out of 1.5x1.5x.1875 tube steel with a vertical support every 24" on the front and back and horizontal crossmember every 24" on top and bottom supporting a 72x36x30 tank, so I am fairly confident it is up to par.

I have been quietly following your build because I am also tearing into an older house to do this, and will have a build thread up in the next few weeks once I get a confirmation my tank is in production.

 

[lolgranny]

We don’t disagree , I just think it’s a little overboard so playing devils advocate and seeing both sides opens up everyone’s eyes a little more. If you’re going the legal route then you’re correct, a judge will decide. I think you’ll spend more time and it will be much more of a headache going that route then fixing and moving on. Then again, some people have the time for that.

All and all, I enjoyed the conversation. It enlighten me on some things. Good luck with everything. I hope it works out for you my friend.

 

[Tallison]

If it was me I think that I would pursue the route you are taking. You are actively trying to prevent a potential catastrophe to your tank and your home and thankfully you are educated enough to provide a solid case as to why you should be refunded the money. Reading your build thread I can see how much work you put into your tank (especially the overflow) so ripping out the stand and starting over is pretty much non negotiable., that fact is the company was paid large amounts of money to make something 100% stable. I'd hate to be working or sleeping and constantly be worried if my tank is going to crash onto the floor. Fish Gallery is local to me and I've had non tank related issues with them, hope they take care of you.

 

[BenitaSolo]

Tank: "tick tick"
Spouse: "Whats the sound honey"
MarsRover: Oh that's nothing, don't worry about it *gulp*

Just kidding- I hope it works out and I hope AGE does the right thing. I expect a supplier to have enough sense not to take issues such as this too far. I agree with you- there are probably hundreds tank owners out there with tanks that have not been made to any specification. However, many of these tanks are made from real world experience. You know, 'if it ain't broke'
This is your typical engineer vs. tradesman/installer issue!
I hope this works out for you, I can't imagine a catastrophic failure at this juncture... ugh

 

[MarsRover]

Tank: "tick tick"
Spouse: "Whats the sound honey"
MarsRover: Oh that's nothing, don't worry about it *gulp*

Just kidding- I hope it works out and I hope AGE does the right thing. I expect a supplier to have enough sense not to take issues such as this too far. I agree with you- there are probably hundreds tank owners out there with tanks that have not been made to any specification. However, many of these tanks are made from real world experience. You know, 'if it ain't broke'
This is your typical engineer vs. tradesman/installer issue!
I hope this works out for you, I can't imagine a catastrophic failure at this juncture... ugh

lol not even kidding...i've actually had a conversation like that...

If it was me I think that I would pursue the route you are taking. You are actively trying to prevent a potential catastrophe to your tank and your home and thankfully you are educated enough to provide a solid case as to why you should be refunded the money. Reading your build thread I can see how much work you put into your tank (especially the overflow) so ripping out the stand and starting over is pretty much non negotiable., that fact is the company was paid large amounts of money to make something 100% stable. I'd hate to be working or sleeping and constantly be worried if my tank is going to crash onto the floor. Fish Gallery is local to me and I've had non tank related issues with them, hope they take care of you.

I've already spent two phone calls with the owner of AGE/The Fish Gallery and he pretty much says i don't deserve a full refund and if i disagree, court. So i'm going to court. He was very rude, (and pretty unprofessional at delivery... he asked to borrow my wrench and level to level the tank...and then did something absolutely foul in my bathroom before telling me they had to find a place "by the side of the road" to ditch the crates from my and @KingJason 's tanks. I told them to leave them for me instead of littering on our roads...i'd use the wood...) and frankly i could tell he was walking me in circular logic (at the beginning of the conversation it was he soon had to run to his son's graduation and then to end the conversation it turned into running to his daughter's graduation) to try and make me give in.

I don't like dealing with people like that. I think honest people deserve second chances to make things right. People and companies who obfuscate so they don't have to own up to their negligent screwups and make it right, i can not abide.

 

[jschultzbass]

Can you show us a picture? I'd be interested in running a simulation on your stand/tank. When did you purchase it? Your dimensions are almost exactly the same as mine but i'm not following what you mean by 8 legs? It depends where those legs are located for it to be properly contributing to preventing the situation that i am in.

I bought mine about 3 years ago now. Here it is when I first got the stand. The steel tube is 1.5". You can kind of see it in these pics but the ends have an additional 1.5x3" header. Let me know what you think.