Surigao State College of Technology

Surigao City-Main Campus

College of Engineering and Information Technology

Laboratory Activity no. 2

CENTER OF PRESSURE:

COMPARING THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Submitted by:

L: GABAISEN, Sheen Claire Mae

M: ADOBO, Mary Pauline

ANUARIO, Karell

DAVID, Kharry

ECHIN, Patrick Ace Exodus

LEYROS, Jarred Lauren

MACABODBOD, Roy Richard

MANTE, Kyle Janica

MANUNGAS, Joshua

QUINALAGAN, Noeme

SOMERA, Kimberlyn

Submitted to:

Engr. Richard A. Badiola, RMP,D.Eng.(CAR)

Assistant Professor III

 T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S

Introduction 1

Objectives 2

Materials 2

Procedure 2

Data Analysis 3

Results 6

Discussion and Conclusions 8

Recommendation 9

Documentation 10
I. Introduction

Center of Pressure is action equals reaction point. This action=reaction point is

the center of lift or the center of pressure. It is called the center of lift because it is the
point where the lift force acts on a lifting surface (wing) or lifting configuration
(aircraft). It is called the center of pressure because this is the average point of all
pressure acting on the lifting surface or lifting configuration. Realize that as the air is
deflected downwards by the wing, the air exerts a force on the wing in the opposite
direction which means that it adds up to the pressure on the underside of the wing with
the result a bigger vector in the upward direction. But on the upper side of the wing
now we have a smaller vector as the air pressure is lowered because here is a
deduction of the pressure caused by the force in the upward direction. The result is a
net force upward. This vertical pressure lowering is the real lift force.

A wing works in fact like a rocket. The center of pressure or the center of lift is
actually the action=reaction point of an object.

II. Objective

The objective of this experiment is to calculate the hydrostatic force a fluid

exerts on a submerged plane surface and then compare the experimental hydrostatic
force to the theoretical hydrostatic force.
III. Materials

 TQH11 Center Pressure Apparatus (SN: A0390/10)

 Weights in any increment.
 Water

IV. Procedure

Set up the equipment as previously described in Section 1.2 and affix the weight
hanger support located on the top left of the hopper. The apparatus will now require
trimming in order to bring the submerged plane to the vertical position. This is achieved
by gently pouring water into the trim tank until the desired position is achieved. The
horizontal line on the tank assembly should be read against the zero line on the back
scale.

Add a 20 grams weight to the weight hanger. Pour water, with dye added if
necessary, into the quadrant tank until a 0® balance is restored. Note the weight and
the height reading of the water (h). Repeat the procedure for the full range of weights.

Empty both tanks of water. Again with the weight hangers, one in position

V. Data Analysis

Reading may be tabulated from outlined in Table 1 and the results calculated in
line with the theory given in Section 2.

Table 1 Format of results

0° inclination

w M h h h3 wB R22 h
M+
(gm) Wx 9.81 x R 2 (mm) (m) (m3) 2
102 (N.m)
20 3.924x10-4 170 0.170 0.0049 3.975x10-4
40 7.848x10-4 160 0.160 0.0041 7.899x10-4
70 1.3734x10- 150 0.150 0.0034 1.3785x10-3
3

100 1.9620x10- 140 0.140 0.0027 1.9671x10-3

3

140 2.7468x10- 130 0.130 0.0022 2.7519x10-3

3
 190 3.7278x10- 120 0.120 0.0017 3.7278x10-3
3

250 4.905x10-3 106 0.106 0.0019 4.9101x10-3

280 5.4936x10- 100 0.100 0.0010 5.4987x10-3
3

300 5.886x10-3 98 0.098 0.9412 5.8911x10-3

Table 2 Format of results

30° inclination

w M h h h3 wB R22 h
M+
(gm) Wx 9.81 x R 2 (mm) (m) (m3) 2
102 (N.m)
310 6.0822x10- 140 0.140 2.744x10 -
6.1822x10-3
3 3

330 6.4746x10- 126 0.126 2.000x10- 6.4746x10-3

3 3

370 7.2594x10- 122 0.122 1.816x10- 7.2594x10-3

3 3

390 7.6518x10 -
116 0.116 1.561x10- 7.6518x10-3
3 3

410 8.0442x10 -
110 0.110 1.331x10- 8.0442x10-3
3 3

430 8.4366x10- 106 0.106 1.191x10- 8.4366x10-3

3 3

470 9.2214x10- 98 0.98 0.9412 9.2214x10-3

3

510 0.0100 92 0.92 0.7787 0.0100

550 0.0108 88 0.88 0.6815 0.0108

VI. Results and Discussion

From this experiment we are able to measure the moment due to the total fluid
thrust on a wholly, or partially, submerged plane surface to be directly measured and
compared with theoretical analysis. The plane area may be tilted relative to the vertical
so that the general case may be studied. The water is contained in a clear Perspex
quadrant, the cylindrical sides of which have their central axes coincident with the axis
about which the turning moments are measured. The total fluid pressures on these
curved surfaces therefore exert no moment about this pivot, the only moment being
due to the fluid pressure on the plane test surface. This moment is simply measured by
weights suspended from a level arm.

For summing the moments about the pivot of the apparatus, the buoyant force is
neglected. As seen in the apparatus setup, the fluid resides inside the quadrant. The
presence of buoyancy comes from the air outside of the quadrant. Because the density
of air is a mere fraction of that of the material of the quadrant and the fluid it contains,
it can be neglected in the hydrostatic force calculations. The weight of the quadrant can
also be neglected. Because the center of the curvature of the quadrant is at the location
of the pivot, it is negated. The weight of the quadrant was not included in the
calculations because the device was calibrated with ballast water so as to begin the
experiment with a net moment of zero about the pivot

VII. Conclusions

It was noted that a large discrepancy between the theoretical and experimental
values occurred. This is most likely due to errors in measurement of the height of the
fluid inside of the quadrant. Another possible cause could be that the apparatus was not
sitting level on the table where the experiment was performed. If the apparatus is not
sitting level, the moment calculations will yield inaccurate results. A levelling device
near the testing apparatus would aid in ensuring the moment balance is accurate.

VIII. Recommendation

Source of error would be the use of the accepted density of water, 1000kg/m 3,
for the theoretical calculation of the hydrostatic force. This accepted value is the density
of seawater at 4oC. The water used in this experiment was tap water at approximately
23oC.However, if the actual density of the tap water was used, the theoretical
calculations would not differ greatly enough to compensate for the magnitude of the
error.

IX. Documentation