They say that wind was discounted, and yet, I remember a BBC program about the disaster (it would have been before 1966, when I came to the States) where they quoted correspondence to the Astronomer Royal requesting wind speed information for the location, he replied 10psf with gusts to 40psf. The Engineer didn't change his wind calc when he lengthened the spans.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
"psf"? "Per Square Foot"? I don't see anything remotely applicable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFS; at http://www.acronymattic.com/PFS.html, I see the "Piper Fatigue Scale" (which turns out to be a means to assess fatigue in postpolio patients) and "Physical Functioning Scale" (tests older adults with a 2-minute walk): should this be "fps" for "Feet Per Second"?
__________________
" Ignorance and arrogance have more in common than their last four letters. "
Google "psf vs. wind speed" (including quotes), and the [apparently kinky!] results probably don't match either your structural engineering world, nor my mechanical engineering / physics one. A chart at http://www.nctlinc.com/velocity-chart/ appears to translate psf as inches of water (huh?). The Emswiler formula translates 10 and 40 psf as just over 63 mph [miles per hour] and 126 mph, respectively. For those who live where there is a SYSTEM of measurement, that's roughly 103 kph [kilometers per hour] and 207 kph, respectively.
The problem with that is that the comparison values for flat plate drag and wind velocity from that date were incorrect, as the Wright Brothers learned a little over 20 years later; we'd need to know what means the Astronomer Royal used to obtain those values, and correct for the error. Should be a fair first approximation, though.
__________________
" Ignorance and arrogance have more in common than their last four letters. "
Your search must be different than mine, on the first page of results:
WindLoadsP , Wind pressure (Psf), = .00256 x V^2 (V= wind speed in Mph). Cd , Drag coefficient, = 2.0 for flat plates. For a long cylinder (like most antenna tubes), Cd = 1.2. ...http://www.arraysolutions.com/Products/windloads.htm
And:
Online Conversion - Convert windspeed to force per areaI need to be able to convert wind speed of miles per hour or Km/hour to a force per ... Example what is the equivalent PSF of a 100mph wind? ...http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1102108190.htm
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Did you include the quotes as I said? When I do, I get just three responses (and thus ONLY one partial page); the first item is a commercial ad, though it does have the formula on it, and a graphical representation as well. The amateur radio forum has multiple formulas, and flat plate Cd values anywhere from 1.0 to 2.0. I did find other sites when using different seeds in Google, but not with the starting point I gave earlier.
I had NEVER previously seen wind expressed as pressure instead of velocity - not in obtaining a degree in physics, nor during an entire career where I had the title "engineer" in some variant for 40 of those years, or in learning to fly, where winds and gusts are critically important - and always expressed in terms of velocity (speed, direction). I'd still like to see how those numbers were obtained, and how the results would look with corrected values [we DO know that the correlated values for wind and flat plate drag were wrong in 1879, but without knowledge of the Astronomer Royal's method of obtaining the figures, no correction is possible. It is even possible that the errors cancelled . . .]. But this also means that the engineer's calculations contained errors even before he lengthened the spans. I wonder whether there were building codes for structures in that place and time, and what safety margins were required; that could greatly affect the outcome.
__________________
" Ignorance and arrogance have more in common than their last four letters. "