Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: Diaphragm Calculations
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Diaphragm Calculations
- From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:16:21 EDT
Thanks Mike, This is the first response that I can truely understand and makes sense. Now why couldn't this be explained in the earlier response from Doug? Now, how about the first term in the equation? This still comes out in Feet. Am I expected to apply a conversion factor of 1 in/ft to this part of the equation or is the equation incorrect? Dennis In a message dated 7/8/99 1:45:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com writes: << Dennis: The implied units on the coefficient 0.188 are 1/ft. This is one of those cases where the equation results are only valid if appropriate units are used. As both a structural design engineer and a Mathcad user, I also run into this type of difficulty. The source of the trouble is that many of our design "equations" are not derived mathematically but are instead simply the result of curve fitting applied to empirical data. Consider for instance the ACI truism that the square root of something in psi units is also in psi units; Mathcad doesn't "understand" this. The reality (call it unfortunate if you want) is that everyone who uses such a "data-fit" equation must confirm whether the equation is units consistent (can be used in Mathcad directly) or units dependent (requires creative conversion). -Mike >>
- Prev by Subject: Re: Diaphragm Calculations
- Next by Subject: RE: Diaphragm Calculations
- Previous by thread: Re: Diaphragm Calculations
- Next by thread: RE: Diaphragm Calculations
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]