asked on # excel 2016 formula - angle of repose

hi experts, i need a formula to be calculated in my attached excel worksheet cell D3

- all the info is in the worksheet

angle-of-repose_1.xlsx

- all the info is in the worksheet

angle-of-repose_1.xlsx

Microsoft ExcelMicrosoft Office

hi byundt, the formula in 'b' is dependant on all the other manual entered data,

- note, cell D5 although is 22 degrees and 47 minutes, entered as 22.47, this = a rise to run ratio of 42:100, which means that for every 100mm in distance 'e', the height rises 42mm, so the formula needs to calculate the gradient back into a rise to run ratio, then this height can be deducted from 'c' minus 'a'

- i hope you can understand

- note, cell D5 although is 22 degrees and 47 minutes, entered as 22.47, this = a rise to run ratio of 42:100, which means that for every 100mm in distance 'e', the height rises 42mm, so the formula needs to calculate the gradient back into a rise to run ratio, then this height can be deducted from 'c' minus 'a'

- i hope you can understand

Frank,

For a 5000 mm wide bin, the rise for the specified angle of repose is 2068 mm. Compare this to the overall height c of 1400 mm. It is therefore obvious that the numbers in this problem are poorly chosen if you were expecting a meaningful (positive) result for dimension b.

Brad

For a 5000 mm wide bin, the rise for the specified angle of repose is 2068 mm. Compare this to the overall height c of 1400 mm. It is therefore obvious that the numbers in this problem are poorly chosen if you were expecting a meaningful (positive) result for dimension b.

Brad

All of life is about relationships, and EE has made a viirtual community a real community. It lifts everyone's boat

William Peck

hi brad, they are not poorly chosen numbers they are actual number taken from a building project

ill try explain again so it can help you understand my requirement

- lets use 3000 instead of 1400 and leave the 300 as is,

- so if we now take the 3000-2068 (rise to run ratio of 42:100) = 932-300 (standard concrete depth)= 632

- therefore the formula needs to be able to calculate 'b' as 632mm

does that make sense?

ill try explain again so it can help you understand my requirement

- lets use 3000 instead of 1400 and leave the 300 as is,

- so if we now take the 3000-2068 (rise to run ratio of 42:100) = 932-300 (standard concrete depth)= 632

- therefore the formula needs to be able to calculate 'b' as 632mm

does that make sense?

- if the result = negative qty that just means there is no requirement for 'b' so only 'a' would apply

Log in or sign up to see answer

Become an EE member today7-DAY FREE TRIAL

Members can start a 7-Day Free trial then enjoy unlimited access to the platform

or

Learn why we charge membership fees

We get it - no one likes a content blocker. Take one extra minute and find out why we block content.

Not exactly the question you had in mind?

Sign up for an EE membership and get your own personalized solution. With an EE membership, you can ask unlimited troubleshooting, research, or opinion questions.

ask a question
thankyou, was a little hard to explain at my end...but we got there

Get an unlimited membership to EE for less than $4 a week.

Unlimited question asking, solutions, articles and more.

Open in new window

It returns a negative number for the problem at hand.For the dimensions as shown, even if b = 0, the bin bottom wouldn't be covered all the way across. You need a much taller hopper for that bin width.