Difference between density and unit weight with same units

AI Thread Summary
Density and unit weight can share the same units but represent different concepts, particularly in concrete and aggregates. In the U.S., density is defined as weight per unit volume, while unit weight considers the weight of a material including voids. The confusion arises when comparing values, as the density of a coarse aggregate can be 167 lbs/ft3, while its unit weight may be 103 lbs/ft3. This discrepancy highlights that unit weight can account for the empty spaces within a material. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate calculations in engineering and material science.
Typhon4ever
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
In my lectures and notes my professor keeps writing out density as lbs/ft3 and unit weight as lbs/ft3. For a material such as concrete it could have a density of 167 lbs/ft3 but a unit weight of 103 lbs/ft3. I am confused as to how these two values are different even though they have the exact same units.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand why there should be a difference. In the United States, density is typically defined as weight per unit volume, and this is the same as unit weight (about 150 pounds per cubic foot for concrete). In the SI system of measure, density is expressed in mass per unit volume, whereas unit weight is expressed in weight per unit volume,so there is a difference on that system of measure. In any case, the 103 pounds per cu ft value for the unit weight of standard concrete is not correct. However , if the concrete is submerged under water, then the buoyant or apparent density is about 100 pounds per cubic ft or in that ballpark , so maybe that's what prof was talking about?
 
PhanthomJay said:
I don't understand why there should be a difference. In the United States, density is typically defined as weight per unit volume, and this is the same as unit weight (about 150 pounds per cubic foot for concrete). In the SI system of measure, density is expressed in mass per unit volume, whereas unit weight is expressed in weight per unit volume,so there is a difference on that system of measure. In any case, the 103 pounds per cu ft value for the unit weight of standard concrete is not correct. However , if the concrete is submerged under water, then the buoyant or apparent density is about 100 pounds per cubic ft or in that ballpark , so maybe that's what prof was talking about?

Ah sorry, those values refer to a coarse aggregate not conrete. The aggregate has a density of 167 and a unit weight of 103 with the same exact units. I guess the question is the same though, in my notes, the lectures, and my laboratory hands outs the density and unit weights are always different despite having the same units.
 
Could density be referring to the material itself, while unit weight includes the empty space?
 
  • Like
Likes PhanthomJay and jbriggs444
  • Like
Likes PhanthomJay
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
I know that mass does not affect the acceleration in a simple pendulum undergoing SHM, but how does the mass on the spring that makes up the elastic pendulum affect its acceleration? Certainly, there must be a change due to the displacement from equilibrium caused by each differing mass? I am talking about finding the acceleration at a specific time on each trial with different masses and comparing them. How would they compare and why?

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top