Name: Jabulani Mjeza

Student number: 220128394

Course: BTech Mechanical engineering

Module: fluid mechanics

Hydrostatic pressure experiment lab report 2022

Due date 16 April 2022

1
STATEMENT OF ORIGIONALITY
I Jabulani Mjeza confirm that this experiment is my own work and that I have not requested
or used disallowed help of third parties to produce this work and that I have clearly
referenced all sources used in the work. I have fully referenced and used inverted commas
for all text directly or indirectly quoted from a source.

This works has not been submitted to any university or other institutions or required by any
lab other than my submission to UJ strengths of material lab.

Date: 05/03/2022 signature:

Contents
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................3
APPARATUS............................................................................................................................................3
PROCEDURE...........................................................................................................................................4
RESULTS and calculations.......................................................................................................................5
Analysis of results..................................................................................................................................6
Discussion and conclusion:....................................................................................................................9
REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................9
Appendix:.............................................................................................................................................10

Figure 1: labelled diagram.....................................................................................................................4

Figure 2: hydrostatic pressure on bench................................................................................................3
Figure 3: depth of immersion vs hydrostatic force graph......................................................................6
Figure 4: depth of immersion vs theoretical depth of centre of pressure.............................................7
Figure 5: depth of immersion vs experimental centre of depth of immersion......................................8
Figure 6: experimental depth of centre of pressure vs theoretical depth of centre of pressure...........8
Figure 7: log-log graph of depth of immersion vs mass..........................................................................9

Table 1: raw data...................................................................................................................................5

Table 2: results.......................................................................................................................................6

2
OBJECTIVES:
It was to determine the hydrostatic force acting on a plane surface immersed in water when
the surface is partially submerged or fully submerged.

To determine the position of the force and to compare the position determined by experiment
with the theoretical position.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Fluid force is constant at any depth but varies vertically. This force is computed as liquid
eight per unit volume times the depth. The total force exerted by the liquid on the curved
section is non-uniformly applied vertically. When the quadrant is immersed in water it is
possible to determine hydrostatic force at any point on the curved surface is normal to the
surface and therefore resolves through the pivot point because this is located at the origin of
the radii. Hydrostatic forces on the upper and lower curved surfaces therefore have no net
effect – no torque to affect the equilibrium of the assembly because all these forces pass
through the pivot. The forces on the sides of the quadrant are horizontal and cancel out. The
hydrostatic force on the vertical submerged face is counteracted by the balanced weight W.
The resultant hydrostatic force on the face can therefore be calculated from the value of the
balance weight and the depth of the water. The system is in equilibrium if the moments
generated about the pivot points by the hydrostatic force and added weight (=mg) are equal,
i.e.:

𝐹𝐿 = 𝑚𝑔𝐿

APPARATUS:
F1-10 Hydraulics Bench and F1-12 Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus are used.

Figure 1: hydrostatic pressure on bench

3
 Figure 2: labelled diagram

PROCEDURE:
1. EXPERIMENT SET UP

a) The dimensions B, D h and L were measured and recorded down for calculations
purposes.

b) the F1-12 flotation tank was put on the F1-10 Hydraulic bench horizontally then the
screwed feet were adjusted until the spirit level detected tank to be levelled in vertical and
horizontal planes.

c) The balance arm was positioned on the knife edges, and it was in checked if it can
freely swing.

d) The weight hanger with no load was placed in the groove at the end of the balance arm.
e) the counterbalance weight was moved until the balance arm was horizontal.

2) methodology

a) the weight was added on the weight hanger which was about 50g.

b) the drain valve was the closed at the end of the tank then water was added slowly in the tank.

c) the tank was filled with water at the start until the balance arm risen.

d) the water was poured slowly to avoid wetting the balance arm and the quadrant above the
water level in tank.

e) the adjustments of water level were made after filling the tank using a jug allowing time
for water to settle before readings were taken.

f) the water was added until the hydrostatic force on the end-face of the quadrant caused
balance arm to be horizontal and it was then inspected by aligning the flat balance arm with
the central mark on the level indicator.

g) When the arm was horizontal, the depth of immersion was read from the scale on the face
of the quadrant.

h) It was then maintained constantly to ignore meniscus by moving head up and down until
the eye was along the true surface of water.

I) the same above methodology was then repeated for different masses added.

4
J) the process took place until the water level had reached the top of the quadrant scale on the
quadrant face.

K) the same procedure was repeated but in the backward direction by removing masses
continuously.

RESULTS and calculations:

Table 1: raw data

Constants Dimensions (m)

Height of End Face (D) 0.1
Width of End Face (B) 0.75
Length of Arm (L) 0.275
Height to Pivot (H) 0.2

1) 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝐹 𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒:

1 1
𝐹= 𝜌𝑔𝐵𝑑2 = (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.05)2 = 0.92𝑁
2 2

2) To find the thrust, F in newtons for fully submerged surface:

𝐹 = 𝜌𝑔𝐵𝐷 (𝑑 𝐷
) = (1000 )(9.81)( 0.1)(0.075) (0.11 − 0.1) = 4.42𝑁
− 2 2

3) to find the theoretical depth of centre of pressure for partially immersed surface in m:
𝑑 0.05
ℎ∗ = 𝐻 − = 0.2 − = 0.183𝑚
3 3

4) to find the practical depth of centre of pressure for partially immersed surface in m:

𝑚𝑔𝐿 2𝑚𝐿 2(0.05)(0.275)

ℎ∗ = = = = 0.147𝑚
𝐹 𝜌𝐵𝑑2 (1000)(0.075)(0.05)2

5) to find the theoretical depth of centre of pressure in m for fully submerged surface:

𝐷2 𝐷 2 2 2
(0.1) 0.1
+(ⅆ− ) +(0.1,− )
∗ 12 2
ℎ = 𝐷 +𝐻−𝑑 ℎ∗ = 12
0.1
2 + (0.2 − 0.11) = 0.164𝑚
ⅆ− (0.11− )
2
2

6) to find the experimental depth of centre of pressure in m for fully submerged surface:
5
ℎ∗ =
𝑚𝐿 𝐷
(0.25)(0.275) = 0.152𝑚
( ) ℎ∗ = ( )( )( )( 0⋅1
1000 0.075 0.1 0.11− )
𝜌𝐵𝐷 ⅆ− 2
2

Table 2: results

Hydrostatic Theoretical Experimental Percentage

Depth of force(N) depth of depth of error
Mass (g)
Immersion (m) centre of centre of %
pressure (m) pressure (m)
50 0.050 0.92 0.183 0.147 19.62%
100 0.070 1.80 0.177 0.150 15.25%
150 0.085 2.66 0.172 0.152 11.63%
200 0.097 3.46 0.168 0.156 7.14%
250 0.110 4.42 0.164 0.153 6.71%
300 0.121 5.22 0.162 0.155 4.32%
350 0.135 6.25 0.160 0.151 5.63%
300 0.121 5.22 0.162 0.155 4.32%
250 0.110 4.42 0.164 0.152 7.32%
200 0.097 3.46 0.168 0.156 7.14%
150 0.085 2.66 0.172 0.152 11,63%
100 0.071 1.85 0.176 0.150 14.77%
50 0.050 0.92 0.183 0.147 19.67%

Analysis of results:

DEPTH OF IMMERSION ( m) VS HYDROSTATIC

FORCE
7

6
HYDROSTATIC FORCE

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

DEPTH OF IMMERSION (m)

Figure 3: depth of immersion vs hydrostatic force graph

6
It was observed that as the depth of immersion increased the hydrostatic force also increased
this showed that as the object went deeper under water the hydrostatic force became greater
which proved that hydrostatic force is directly proportional to depth of immersion.

Depth Of Immersion VS theoretical Depth Of Centre Of

Pressure (m)
0.185

0.18

0.175
theoretical depth of center of

0.17

0.165

0.16

0.155

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Depth of immersion (m)

Figure 4: depth of immersion vs theoretical depth of centre of pressure

It was observed that as the depth of immersion increases and the depth of centre of pressure
decreased. This shows that depth of immersion is inversely proportional to the depth of centre
of pressure.

7
 Depth Of immersion VS Experimental Depth Of Centre Of
Pressure (m)
0.157
0.156
experimental depth of cenre ofpressure

0.155
0.154
0.153
0.152
0.151
0.15
0.149
0.148
0.147
0.146

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16

Depth of immersion (m)

Figure 5: depth of immersion vs experimental centre of depth of immersion

From the graph above it was observed that the experimental depth of immersion increases as
the depth of immersion increases which shows that depth of immersion is directly
proportional to the experimental depth of centre of pressure.

Experimental VS Theoretical depth of centre of pressure (m)

0.185

0.18

0.175
theoretical depth of centre of pressure

0.17

0.165

0.16

0.155
0.1460.1470.1480.1490.150.1510.1520.1530.1540.1550.1560.157
experimental depth of centre of pressure (m)

Figure 6: experimental depth of centre of pressure vs theoretical depth of centre of pressure

8
From the graph above, as experimental depth of centre of pressure increases the theoretical
depth of centre of pressure decreases. Experimental depth of pressure is inversely
proportional to the theoretical depth of immersion.

Depth of immersion (m) Vs Mass (g)

1000

100
Mass

10

1
0.01 0.1 1
depth of immersion (m)

Figure 7: log-log graph of depth of immersion vs mass

Discussion and conclusion:

It was found that the hydrostatic force for partially immersed surface is lesser than the
hydrostatic force for fully immersed surface. As the depth of immersion increased the
hydrostatic force increased too. Therefore, it was concluded that hydrostatic force is directly
proportionally to the depth of pressure.

The theoretical depth of centre of pressure decreased as the experimental depth of centre of
pressure increased. These results concluded that experimental depth of centre of pressure is
inversely related to the theoretical depth of centre of pressure. This leads to an increase in
percentage error.

REFERENCE:
n.d. 1.1: Experiment #1: Hydrostatic Pressure - Engineering .... [online] Available at:
<https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Civil_Engineering/Book%3A_Applied_Fluid_Mecha
nics_Lab_Manual_(Ahmari_and_Kabir)/01%3A_Lab_Manual/01.1%3A_Experiment_%231
%3A_Hydrostatic_Pressure> [Accessed 2022].

9
n.d. Applications and examples of hydrostatic pressure - tec .... [online] Available at:
<https://www.tec-science.com/mechanics/gases-and-liquids/applications-and-examples-of-
hydrostatic-pressure/> [Accessed 2022].
n.d. Experiment #1: Hydrostatic Pressure – Applied Fluid .... [online] Available at:
<https://uta.pressbooks.pub/appliedfluidmechanics/chapter/experiment-1/> [Accessed 2022].
n.d. Experiment #1_ Hydrostatic Pressure – Applied Fluid....[online] Available at: <https://dl-
manual.com/doc/experiment-1-hydrostatic-pressure-applied-fluid-mechanics-lab-manual-
wo128y4wg4v5> [Accessed 2022].
n.d. Experiment (10 - Philadelphia University. [online] Available at:
<https://www.philadelphia.edu.jo/academics/waraydah/uploads/Center%20of%20Pressure.pd
f> [Accessed 2022].

Appendix:
Hydrostatic force calculations for partially submerged surface: 𝐹 = 1 𝜌𝑔𝐵𝑑2
2
1
𝐹= (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.05)2 = 0.92𝑁
2
1
𝐹= (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.07)2 = 1.8𝑁
2
1
𝐹= (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.085)2 = 2.66𝑁
2
1
𝐹= (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.097)2 = 3.46𝑁
2
Hydrostatic force calculations for fully immersed surface: 𝐷
𝐹 = 𝜌𝑔𝐵𝐷 (𝑑 − )
2

0.1
𝐹 = (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.1) (0.11 ) = 4.42𝑁
− 2

0.1
𝐹 = (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.1) (0.121 ) = 5.22𝑁
− 2
0.1
𝐹 = (1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.1) (0.135 ) = 6.25𝑁
− 2
ⅆ
Theoretical depth of centre of pressure for partially immersed surface: ℎ∗ = 𝐻 −
3
0.05
ℎ∗ = 0.2 − = 0.183𝑚
3
0.07
ℎ∗ = 0.2 − = 0.177𝑚
3
0.085
ℎ∗ = 0.2 − = 0.172𝑚
3

10
 0.097
ℎ∗ = 0.2 − = 0.168𝑚
3
𝑚𝑔𝐿 2𝑚𝐿
Experimental depth of centre of pressure for partially immersed surfaces: ℎ∗ = =
𝐹 𝜌𝐵ⅆ2

2(0.05)(0.275)
ℎ∗ = (1000)(0.075)(0.05)2 = 0.147𝑚

2(0.1)(0.275)
ℎ∗ = (1000)(0.075)(0.07)2 = 0.150𝑚

2(0.15)(0.275)
ℎ∗ = = 0.152𝑚
(1000)(0.075)(0.085)2

2(0.2)(0.275)
ℎ∗ = (1000)(0.075)(0.097)2 = 0.156𝑚

𝐷2 𝐷 2
∗ (
Theoretical depth of centre of pressure for fully immersed surface: ℎ = 12 ⅆ− )
+ 𝐷
2 +
ⅆ−
2
𝐻−𝑑
(0.1)2 0.1 2

ℎ∗ =
+ (0.1, − + (0.2 − 0.11) = 0.164𝑚
12
) 2
0.1
(0.11 − )
2
(0.1)2 0.1 2
ℎ∗ = 12 + (0.1, 2 ) + (0.2 − 0.121) = 0.162𝑚
−
0.1
(0.121 − )
2
(0.1)2 0.1 2
ℎ∗ = 12 + (0.1, 2 ) + (0.2 − 0.135) = 0.160𝑚
−
0.1
(0.135 − )
2
𝑚𝐿
Experimental depth of centre of pressure for fully immersed surface: ℎ∗ =
�

(0.25)(0.275) 𝜌𝐵𝐷(ⅆ− )
2
∗
ℎ = 0.1
(1000)(0.075)(0.1) (0.11 − )
2 = 0.153𝑚
(0.3)(0.275)
ℎ∗ =
= 0.155𝑚
0.1 (0.350)(0.275)
(1000)(0.075)(0.1) (0.121 − ) ∗
2 ℎ = 0.1
(1000)(0.075)(0.1) (0.135 − )
2
11
 = 1.51𝑚

Percentage error calculations:

12
0⁄ 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ℎ∗ − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ∗
0 × 100
= 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ℎ∗

0,183 − 0.147
× 100 = 19.62%
0,183
0.177 − 0.150
× 100 = 15.25%
0.177
0.172 − 0.152
× 100 = 11.63%
0.172
0,168 − 0.156
× 100 = 7.14%
0.168
0.164 − 0 ⋅ 156
× 100 = 6.71%
0.16 +
0.162 − 0.155
× 100 = 4,32%
0.162

13