ABSTRACT

Pressure change analysis, by definition, is an analysis to observe the effect of specific

parameters on the fluid velocity and pressure at various points. The experiment is also carried
out mainly to relate the effect of each parameter with Bernoulli’s principle. Bernoulli’s
principle states that within an ideal fluid, the sum of thermal energy, kinetic energy, and
potential energy must be constant. Thus, the relationship between pressure and velocity can be
made, where points with higher velocity will have lower pressure in comparison with points
with lower velocity. The data obtained is used to relate the effect of each parameter with
Bernoulli’s principle by comparing the time taken for the fluid to reach the desired points. In
this experiment, the chemicals used were oil and water. The experiment begins with the
preparation of three mineral water bottles which were labeled and nailed with a nail size of
2mm at the 200ml mark. Then, the bottles were filled with 1000ml of water, and the nail was
removed to record the time taken for every 200ml reduction in volume. The experiment was
repeated with a nail sizes of 3mm, and 4mm, and oil as the fluid in the bottle for all nail
diameters. Based on the results, it is observed that the bottles with larger diameters took less
time to reach 800, 600, 400, and 200ml, respectively. The fluid type also resulted in different
results, where oil took more time on average to reach the targeted volume. Hence, it proved
Bernoulli’s principle correlates well with pressure change analysis, where external factor such
as height, area, and density affects the pressure resulting in a higher velocity of the fluids. In
certain cases, viscosity has also been considered since density affects the velocity of fluids
insignificantly when both fluids have different viscosity.

1
METHODOLOGY

Three 1.5 litre bottles was prepared.

A scale of every 200 mL was marked on the bottle staring from the bottom of the bottle
until 1000 mL.

A hole was made using a nail sized 2 mm at the scale of 200 mL.

The water was refilled in the bottle till 1000 mL.

The nail was removed carefully and the stopwatch was started simultaneously.

The time was recorded when the water decrease every 200 mL.

The steps were repeated by replacing the size of the nail to 3 mm and 4 mm.

The steps were also repeated by using oil as liquid in the bottle.

Figure 1: Steps to analyze pressure change when the cross-sectional area and the density of
liquid were changed.

2
RESULTS

Table 1.1: Time taken for the liquid to flow out from the bottle for every 200 mL.

Time taken (s)

Volume
Diameter = 2 mm
(mL)
Water Oil

1000 0.00 0.00

800 37.78 56.61

600 83.09 117.87

400 147.01 217.42

200 257.75 631.89

Graph of volume of liquid flow (mL) against time taken (s) for 2 mm
sized nail
1100
1000
900
800
Volume (mL)

700
600 Water
500 Oil
400
300
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time taken (s)

Figure 2.1: Volume of liquid flow (mL) vs. time taken (s) for 2 mm sized nail.

3
Table 1.2: Time taken for the liquid to flow out from the bottle for every 200 mL.

Time taken (s)

Volume
Diameter = 3 mm
(mL)
Water Oil

1000 0.00 0.00

800 12.13 14.74

600 28.68 32.50

400 49.58 58.25

200 93.89 165.46

Graph of volume of liquid flow (mL) against time taken (s) for 3 mm
sized nail
1100
1000
900
800
Volume (mL)

700
600 Water
500 Oil
400
300
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time taken (s)

Figure 2.2: Volume of liquid flow (mL) vs. time taken (s) for 3 mm sized nail

4
Table 1.2: Time taken for the liquid to flow out from the bottle for every 200 mL.

Time taken (s)

Volume
Diameter = 4 mm
(mL)
Water Oil

1000 0.00 0.00

800 10.71 9.23

600 22.02 22.14

400 39.33 40.45

200 71.36 97.83

Graph of volume of liquid flow (mL) against time taken (s) for 4 mm
sized nail
1100
1000
900
800
Volume (mL)

700
600 Water
500 Oil
400
300
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time taken (s)

Figure 2.3: Volume of liquid flow (mL) vs. time taken (s) for 4 mm sized nail.

5
DISCUSSION

Pressure can be defined as force applied perpendicular to the surface of an object per
unit area where the force is evenly distributed (Khan, 2015). In this experiment, pressure change
analysis is being investigated in correlation to Bernoulli's principle. Bernoulli's principle states
that an increase in the velocity of fluid will cause a decrease in pressure which means slow-
moving fluid will exert larger pressure than fast-moving fluid (Augustyn, 2015). At the same
time, its applicable to airflow and liquid as it can be illustrated via the 'banana ball,' which is a
curve ball pathway created by the difference in pressure on the surface of the ball. In simpler
terms, Bernoulli's principle states that higher-pressure regions will have lower fluid speed and
vice versa.

Bernoulli's principle is further proved using its equation which is shown below:

1 2 𝑃𝑃
𝑣𝑣 + + 𝑔𝑔ℎ = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
2 𝜌𝜌

where,
v: velocity
P: pressure
ρ: density
g: gravity acceleration
h: height

The equation was derived since Bernoulli’s principle stated that the total mechanical
energy of the moving fluid involving the energy associated with the fluid pressure, the kinetic
energy of the fluid motion, and the gravitational potential energy of elevation remains constant
(Lindsay, 1952). The pressure change analysis was investigated in the experiment by testing
the cross-sectional area of the three different 1.5 L bottles with different hole sizes, which are
2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm, to see its correlation to the dynamic pressure. At the same time, the
height and density of the liquid were investigated to find out whether the velocity was affected
as well. The time taken for the liquid level to decrease was recorded from 1000 mL to 200 mL.

6
 According to the results obtained from this experiment, the cross-sectional area does
affect the dynamic pressure. This is because pressure can be defined as the force acting
perpendicularly to a unit area.
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Looking at the formula above, pressure is inversely proportional to the cross-sectional

area. (Petrucci, 2007) Therefore, as observed, the pressure will decrease as the cross-sectional
area increases from 2 mm to 4 mm. This can be explained via Bernoulli’s principle, which
states that when the speed of a fluid increases, the pressure of the fluid will decrease. This due
to the dynamic pressure is inversely proportional to the square of the cross-sectional area.
Hence, when the cross-sectional area of the hole was increased from 2 mm to 3 mm, and finally
to 4 mm, the velocity of the fluid increased. Correspondingly, the time taken to for the liquid
to flow out from the bottle will increase as the dynamic pressure of the liquid decreases.

Based on the collected experiment data, it was observed that the height of the liquid
greatly affects the velocity of fluid flowing from the container. According to Bernoulli’s
principle, the height of the liquid is inversely proportional to the velocity of the liquid.
Therefore, when the height of the liquid increases, the velocity will decrease, and the time taken
for the liquid to flow completely will increase. A similar hypothesis can be applied when two
fluids are flowing from a similar height, but the densities for both fluids are different. Two
fluids that were used in the experiment were oil and water. Based on Bernoulli’s principle, the
density of the liquid is inversely proportional to the velocity of the liquid. (Yunus, 2015) So, if
the density of the liquid increases, velocity will decrease, and the time taken for the liquid to
flow completely will increase. However, based on the data collected, water flows faster than
oil, even though water is denser than oil. Oil flows slower than water due to the property of
viscosity. The viscosity of a fluid is a measure of its resistance to deformation at a given rate.
In simpler terms, water flows freely as it has a low viscosity, and oil flows slowly due to its
high viscosity. Hence the time taken for water in every 200 mL should be shorter than oil during
the experiment.

7
 Based on Figures 2.1 to 2.3, an observation can be made where the time taken by both
liquids to reach the desired volume is longer when the cross-sectional area is smaller, and vice
versa. For example, the total time taken by water to reach 200ml was 257.75, 93.89, and 71.36
seconds when the diameter (cross-sectional area) was 2, 3, and 4mm, respectively. In
comparison, the 2mm diameter data (Figure 2.1) took 27.07, 61.07, 101.68, and 186.39 seconds
longer than the data in 4mm diameter (Figure 2.3) for every 200ml. At the same time, the time
taken by 2mm diameter data (Figure 2.1) was 25.65, 54.41, 97.43, and 163.86 seconds longer
than the 3mm diameter data (Figure 2.2) for every 200ml.

Similarly, the same observation can be made for oil as the liquid in the bottle, where the
time taken by oil for a nail diameter of 2, 3, and 4mm to reach the 200 ml mark were 631.89,
165.46, and 97.83 seconds, respectively. When comparing the time taken from data in 2mm
with 4mm, the time taken would be 47.38, 95.73, 176.97, 534.06 seconds slower, whereas the
data of 2mm, when compared with 3mm, were slower by 41.87, 85.37, 159.17 and 466.43
seconds.

The result obtained from both liquids proves the hypothesis that where larger the cross-
sectional area, the greater the velocity of the liquid (Duan, 2017). This phenomenon is due to
Bernoulli’s principle, where a larger area results in lower pressure, which causes higher
velocity.

8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the principle of Bernoulli, which relates the cross-sectional area, height,
and density of the fluid, was proven in this experiment. The relationship between these
parameters is shown in the results, where the time difference can be observed and calculated
based on desired parameters. The results data obtained from the experiment showed that a
decrease in height reduces the fluid’s velocity due to a decrease in potential energy, and the
larger area impacts the velocity similarly. It affects the velocity of the fluids by an observable
pressure drop in the fluids. Both observations relate closely to Bernoulli’s principle, except for
density which did not impact the results as expected. This is considered a special case where
even though oil has a lower density than water, it is supposed to ensure oil flows faster.
However, due to viscosity having a stronger effect which slows down the fluid flow, the oil
will flow slower than water due to higher viscosity. Keeping it short, these parameters affect
the pressure of the fluids, which results in an increase in the velocity of the fluids flowing
outwards.

A few recommendations for this experiment include using a larger difference in

diameter for the nails. This is to ensure the prevention of human error as the observation for the
time taken can be seen more clearly. At the same time, it is also important to ensure the
experiment was done on the same spot with similar conditions as the difference in the location
of the bottles being placed can result in different times taken due to the height factor, which
affects velocity based on Bernoulli’s principle. It is also recommended to take multiple readings
to ensure higher accuracy and prevent errors in recording the data collected.

9
REFERENCES

1. Augustyn, A. (2015, July). Bernoulli's theorem. Encyclopædia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Bernoullis-theorem

2. Lindsay, G. A. (1952). Pressure energy and Bernoulli's principle. American Journal of

Physics, 20(2), 86-88.

3. Qin, R., & Duan, C. (2017, October). The principle and applications of Bernoulli

equation. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 916, No. 1, p. 012038). IOP

Publishing.

4. Khan, S. (2015, July 29). What is Bernoulli's equation? (article). Khan Academy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/fluids/fluid-dynamics/a/what-is-
bernoullis-equation

5. Petrucci, et al. (2007) General Chemistry: Principles & Modern Applications. 9th ed.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

6. Yunus A. Cengel, Michael A. Boles, Mehmet Kanoglu. (2015). Thermodynamics: An

Engineering Approach, 9th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

10
APPENDIX

Figure 3: Filling up the bottles after measuring the volume of the fluids required

Figure 4: Observing the flow of oil from the bottle

11
 Figure 5: Heating up the nail using Bunsen burner

Figure 6: Making hole on the bottles using the heated nail

12
 Figure 7: Filling up the oil in the bottle

Figure 8: Made the marking on the bottle

13
14
 BKC1752 LAB REPORT RUBRIC

Rubric for LAB REPORT

Unacceptable Poor Average Good

Item Assessed (0) (1) (2) (3) Score

Abstract • No abstract • No highlight of the • Missing objective • Objective

(x 5) significant results and/or conclusion. • Summary of the
and/or methodology. methodology
• Summary of the
results
• Conclusion

Methodology • No flowchart • Methodology flow is • Methodology flow is • Methodology flow is

flowchart incorrect. correct, but not correct and concise.
(x 5) concise.

Data Tabulation • No table • Tables provided but • Tables provided, • Tables numbered
(x 3) no captions given captions given and with the Arabic
OR numbered in numerals and have
• Tables provided but • sequence but no • captions in sequence.
captions not in • units The units in which
sequence and not results are expressed
mentioned in the are given at the top of
text each column (in
parentheses)

Graph • No Graph OR • Graphs provided but • Properly captioned, • Properly captioned,

(x 3) • All graphs wrongly no captions given numbered and numbered and
plotted OR graphs mentioned in graphs mentioned in
• Graphs provided but the text. the text.
captions not in • However, conditions • Conditions of
sequence and not of experiment (P, T) experiment (P, T)
mentioned in the not mentioned in the mentioned in the
text caption caption
 BKC1752 LAB REPORT RUBRIC

Unacceptable Poor Average Good

Item Assessed (0) (1) (2) (3) Score

Calculations • Calculations not • Skip a few important • All calculation steps • All calculation steps
(x 5) shown OR calculation steps are clearly written are clearly written
• Calculations totally and correct but and correct and with
wrong wrong unit correct unit

Results & • Only mention the • Attempt to discuss • Elucidation of result • Elucidation and
Discussion results without but failed miserably but contains some supported by proper
(x 30) meaningful flaws references or logical
discussion explanations.

Conclusions • No conclusion • Conclusion missing • Conclusions • Important/

(x 5) sections OR the important points regarding major significant results
• Conclusions totally OR points are drawn, are highlighted
not reflecting the • No recommendation but many are which also meets
scopes given to improve the misstated, indicating the scopes of
experiment. a lack of experiments AND
understanding OR • Several
• Conclusion is too recommendations
general. Several have been stated.
recommendations
have been given but
they are too general
and not contributing
to the experiment’s
improvement.

References • Copy & paste • Most of citations in • A few citations in • All citations in text
(x 5) references OR text are not available text are not available are available in list of
• Ununiformed in list of reference in list of reference reference and use
referencing system although use same AND the same
OR referencing system • Use same referencing system
• 80% references from OR referencing system AND
internet OR • Internet sources > • All references from
• Use of Wikipedia 60% reliable resources
 BKC1752 LAB REPORT RUBRIC

Unacceptable Poor Average Good

Item Assessed (0) (1) (2) (3) Score

Grammar and • Unreadable and not • Numerous spelling • Occasional spelling • Correct use of words.
Spelling written in scientific and/or grammar and/or grammar
(x 5) way errors. errors.
• Direct translation
using Google
Translate.

Total Assessment Marks (198)