# Weight calculation on layer properties verses report

DELFTship forum Feature requests Weight calculation on layer properties verses report

• Author
Posts
• #37217
steve
Participant

I do not understand the weights that are calculate on the layers verses the properties listed on the design hydrostatics report. I have a layer named side which has the following on the printed report: Area = 61.788 f2, Thickness 1, Weight 172.20 tons. My layer has: Area=61.788, Thickness 1, Weight 6178.8 (no units are given in the layer window). My density is 100.

• #37219
Icare
Participant

Obviously there a mistake in the units.

Isn’t there a mistake with the density? As far as I remember you’ve to give a ratio regarding the water density (1 for fresh water and 1.03 or so for salted water).

Are you sure you’re using imperial units (foot and inch) not international units (meter and millimeter)?

• #37220
giorgio zuppin
Participant

Hey there, New Year, Old problems…
Just a small contribution: topic on weight and density of layer is a recurrent one as maesles on kids.
Let’s stay on metric – I’m lazy –
Density>> relative density to water on NormalConditions – you can find them on every tech man. –
Thickness>> the thickness you assign to the layer i.e. the mesh, not of a solid draw by it, in Meters 0,000.
Easy test: draw a 1,000 1,000 square, give 1,000 as thickness and a known density: here’s a cubic meter of xxx, weighing xxx.
Full stop
It sounds stupid I know but once me too felt in confusion… it has to be a black Bermuda’s hole triangle in the prog.
Bye, Jurgen.

• #37221
giorgio zuppin
Participant

All right, a different approach…
Assuming your density and thickness data are almost coherent and you’r thinking I’m just another old tart:
Erratic data could come from:
Layer’s assignement and properties – i.e. symmetrical or not –
Drawing itself – leaking point due to unadvert overlapping of edges and/or faces –
Layer’s positioning to WL and subsequent hydro properties misjudged.
The list is long and the bug could be as usual a stupid one.
Check it out and let us know.
Thanks, Jurgen.