Is the API Hydrocarbon Emission Formula Dimensionally Consistent?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dimensional consistency of the hydrocarbon emission formula provided by the American Petroleum Institute. Concerns are raised about the term (p/(14.7-p))^0.68, questioning whether it is dimensionless due to the presence of atmospheric pressure. Participants note that formulas often require specific units for accurate application and that constants in formulas typically have no units. The distinction between equations and formulas is emphasized, highlighting the importance of unit consistency when interpreting results. Overall, the conversation underscores the need for careful consideration of units in scientific formulas.
popoff
Messages
2
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The American Petroleum Institute has published a correlation for determining the hydrocarbon emissions from fixed-roof storage tanks

Ly = (24/1000) * (p/(14.7-p))^0.68 * D^1.73 * H^0.51 * T^0.5 * Fp * C

where: Ly is breathing emissions, bbl/yr; p is the true vapor pressure at the bulk temperature, psia; D is the tank diameter, ft; H is the height in ft; T is the average tank outage corrected for roof volume, ft; Fp is the dimensionless paint factor; and C is the dimensionless adjustment factor.

Is this equation dimensionally consistent?

Homework Equations


Unit conversions

The Attempt at a Solution


I have a doubt with the (p/(14.7-p))^0.68 term. I think it should be dimensionless, but I am not totally sure as there is a 14.7 with no units minus a pressure in psia...
 
  • Like
Likes ayeshanaved23
Physics news on Phys.org
popoff said:
... as there is a 14.7 with no units minus a pressure in psia...
What is atmospheric pressure in psi?
 
popoff said:
I have a doubt with the (p/(14.7-p))^0.68 term. I think it should be dimensionless, but I am not totally sure as there is a 14.7 with no units minus a pressure in psia...
It's terms like that that indicate that this is not an equation, but a formula. There are many such formulas for different disciplines, typically compiled into handbooks, where you must enter the variable values as dimensionless magnitudes of quantities that are given in specific units. A formula is "true" only so long as you specify all quantities in the required units and don't entry the units :smile:

A formula's constants typically have no units so you can't trivially "translate" the formula to work with other units, and since you have to interpret the result of the formula in particular units you can't just treat the expression as an equation and "solve" for any of the variables in terms of the others without putting some thought into what you're doing.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top