Lb/f to kn/m and not consistent

  • Thread starter Thread starter violt
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around converting weight from pounds per foot (lb/f) to kilonewtons per meter (kn/m) for a concrete beam. The weight of concrete is established at 23.54 kN/m³, equivalent to 150 lb/ft³. Calculations show a discrepancy between the expected beam weight of 3.531 kN/m and the converted value of 4.240181 kN/m. The error is attributed to incorrect dimensions used in the calculations, specifically the width and depth of the beam. The participant acknowledges the mistake in their conversion formula and appreciates the clarification.
violt
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to convert lb/f to kn/m.
A concrete has weight of 23.54 kiloNewton/cubic meter which is equal to 150 pounds per cubic feet.

For a beam with the following dimensions
width = 0.3m = 0.84 feet
depth = 0.5m = 1.9685 feet

for the beam weight per meter in metric, it is 23.54*0.3*0.5=3.531 kn/m
for the beam weight per foot in english, it is 150*0.98*1.96=290.62 lb/foot

But if I convert 290.62 lb/foot to kn/m. I don't get 3.531kn/m but 4.240181 kn/m
here's the calculation

290.62 lb/f * 3.28 f/m * 1kn/224.8lb = 4.24 kn/m

why not 3.531 kn/m??

Note this is not a homework. Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I didn't check the calculation, but I noticed you wrote 0.84 feet for the width but used 0.98 feet in a calculation a few lines down. Maybe that is where the error lies?
 
I don't know where you got your meter and feet conversions from, but they are in error.

1 meter = 39.37 in. = 3.2808 ft.

1 foot = .305 m
 
i got the error. It's formula in my excel which uses 0.6m instead of 0.5m. Anyway, thanks
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
15K
Replies
17
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top