×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Metric Conversions

Metric Conversions

Metric Conversions

(OP)
Hey all

I seem to be having some problems converting Imperical units to metric as i am a uk engineer. The problem is to do with Shear in a flat slab.

Allowable Vc=4*sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv

Imperical Units
Vn=102,000lb
fc=4000psi
bo=83in
And the imperical depth for the slab is given as 4.86in

Mertic units
Vn=451kN Conversion factor = 4.448222
fc= 27.576Pa Conversion factor = 6.894757e-3
bo=2108mm Conversion factor = 25.4
Yet my depth is coming out at 10.18mm

I can't seem to figure out the problem
Any help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks in advance
Regards

RE: Metric Conversions

I performed a crude metric conversion of the equation

Try Vc = 3.3 EE-4 sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv

dv = Vc/[3.3 EE-4 sqrt(Fc)*bo] in mm

where Vc = 451 KN

fc = 27.576 MPa (your conversion factor was for psi to MPa)

bo = 2108 mm

RE: Metric Conversions

I don't know this formula but its units don't work out. That is, Force / [sqrt(Force/Length^2)*Length] does not equal Length.

--------------------
Bring back the HP-15
www.hp15c.org
--------------------

RE: Metric Conversions

Check out the unit balance in the original equation

I don't think 4*sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv equals pounds?

  lb^0.5 * in * in      lb^0.5 * in * in
  ------------------ =  ----------------
  (in^2)^0.5              in

= lb^0.5 * in ????????????????

RE: Metric Conversions

Beggar, check ACI 318 Sec 11.3 and commentary..ACI 318 equation 11-3 is similar to the one posted by Davybeano.

We must not forgert that many of these equations are empirically derived based on research data and mathematical modelling to test validity of data. Often several contants (Davybeano's case the number 4) come into play. Use of and MLT (mass, length, time) units appraoch to check validity thus may not always work.

RE: Metric Conversions

With d=4.86in, I get Vc=102,048lb=453.9KN.

I think that equation is set up to use f'c in units of psi only. (You'll always have to convert your final answers to metric and use f'c in psi).

RE: Metric Conversions

Daveybeano,

The 4 has to be converted also by dividing by the sqrt of the conversion factor = sqrt(144.----) = 12

so
4*sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv
with Fc in psi

becomes

4/12*sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv
with Fc N/mm2

RE: Metric Conversions

That's right rapt.

Vc = 0.333*sqrt(fc)*bo*d with fc in MPa, bo and d in mm gives Vc in N similar to what I posted earlier when solving for Vc in KN.

Another easy method of verifying equation

If you do not have the metric version of ACI 318, just look at equation 11-3 in the 1997 UBC Sec 1911.3.1.1/ACI 318-05 Sec 11.3.1.1...compare the imperial and SI versions of the equation...substitute fc for f'c, bo for bw and dv for d. Now the imperial version looks similar to Davybeano's except the constant is 2 instead of 4....while in the SI version, the constant is 0.166.

Therefore if the constant in the imperial version were doubled to 2*2 = 4 (Davybeano's eq was Vc=4*sqrt(Fc)*bo*dv) , it follows the constant in the SI version would also have to be doubled to 2*0.166 = 0.332

Finally plug Davybeano's numbers in the imperial version of the equation he provided...then try it with the metric version indicated in first paragraph. Do it again with a different fc (say 6,000 psi/41.4MPa)and repeat with both imperial and SI equations. It'll check out.


 
 
 

RE: Metric Conversions

I see, the "4" requires converting also.

RE: Metric Conversions

maybe the "4" isn't just a number, but a dimensional co-efficient, to fix the units it would be lb^.5/in, so 4 in imperial units would become 4*4.45^.5/25.4mm = 0.332 ...

RE: Metric Conversions

rb1957, clearly the number "4" is a dimensional coefficient (and not a non-dimensional one) as you and rapt have demonstrated with the MLT analysis.

RE: Metric Conversions

You should consider that in some concrete design codes, such as the Canadian one, srqt(Fc') is in the same units as Fc'.

This may be the issue.

I would do the whole calc in imperial, then convert your result to metric, not trying to convert all terms in these empirical equations.

tg

RE: Metric Conversions

I rarely (never) design in concrete but am always ammused that the concrete guys have the square root of Pounds per square inch in their design equations.  The units make no sense to an old steel stress guy, but I always say that I proudly display my mistakes up in the air for all to see and don't bury them underground. ;)

_____________________________________
I have been called "A storehouse of worthless information" many times.

RE: Metric Conversions

I think the following statement is both extremely important and is also extremely profound.  

ALL UNITS ARE COMPARISONS AND ARE THEMSELVES DIMENSIONLESS.

Merry Christmas
santasantasantasantasantasantasantasantasanta

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources