Professional Documents
Culture Documents
When the quadrant is immersed in water it is possible to analyze the forces acting on the
surfaces of the quadrant as follows:
The 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 of these forces pass through the
pivot.
The forces on the sides of the quadrant are horizontal and cancel out (equal and opposite).
1
Once the moment caused by the weight of the quadrant is nullified by adjusting the
counterweight so that balancing arm is perfectly collinear with the level indicator a balancing
weight of known mass is added and water meticulously added until the balancing arm has
once again returned to its previous precisely noted position aided by the hydrostatic force of
water creating a moment which counter acts the torque of the weight on the balancing arm
and thus holds the system in equilibrium
The magnitude of the hydrostatic force can be calculated from the value of the balance
weight and the depth of the water as follows:
mgL = Fh’’
Where:
h’’ is the distance between the fulcrum and the centre of pressure in meters.
By calculating the Thrust and the centre of pressure on the end face of the quadrant we can
compare the experimental results with those obtained from theoretical ideal calculations
Where:
The forces present are F (the hydrostatic thrust) and mg (the balancing weight)
Where:
M = Fh’’
A weight is placed on the balancing arm, the moment created is proportional to the length of
the arm defined as: L
The two forces have put the system back into its previous state of equilibrium, therefore the
moments are equal i.e.
Fh’’ = mgL
Therefore, by substitution:
Where:
3
Theoretical position of the line of force action below the
pivot (h’’)
The theoretical formula for the depth of pressure (h’) is:
h’ = Ix/Ah
Where:
Ix = the area moment of inertia of the immersed plane relative to its centroid.
Thus: Ah = Bd2/2
By substitution:
h’ = 2Ix/Bd2
Ix = Ic + Ah²
Where:
Ix = the area moment of inertia of the immersed plane relative to its centroid.
Ic = the moment of inertia of the object about an axis passing through its centre of mass in
this case: Bh’’
Therefore, by substitution:
Ix = Bh’’ + Ah²
But:
h = d/2
Therefore
h’ = d2/4
h’’= d3/12
Substitute values:
Ix = Bd3/12 + Bd(d/2)2
= Bd3/12 + Bd3/4
4
= 4Bd3/12 = Bd3/3
But:
h’ = 2Ix/Bd2
Therefore, by substitution:
h’ = (2Bd3/3) ÷ Bd2
.
= 2d/3
h’’ = H + h’ – d
But: h’ = 2d/3
Therefore, by substitution:
h’’ = H + (2d/3 – d)
= H + (2d/3 – 3d/3)
= H + (-d/3)
Therefore:
h’’ = H – d/3
(Formula 3)
Fh’’ = mgL
Therefore, by substitution:
F (H – d/3) = mgL
Thus:
F = (mgL)/(H – d/3)
(Formula 4)
5
When the quadrant is immersed in water it is possible to analyze the forces acting on the
surfaces of the quadrant as follows:
The 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 of these forces pass through the
pivot. The forces on the sides of the quadrant are horizontal and cancel out (equal and
opposite).
The Hydrostatic test apparatus is put on a hydrostatic work bench and levelled using a built in
spirit level by adjusting the individual feet of the apparatus to eliminate inaccurate readings
of force i.e. The gravitational force of the water acting against the quadrant when the only
desired force to have an effect is the hydrostatic force of water
Once the moment caused by the weight of the quadrant is nullified by adjusting the
counterweight so that balancing arm is perfectly collinear with the level indicator a balancing
weight of known mass is added and water meticulously added until the balancing arm has
once again returned to its previous precisely noted position aided by the hydrostatic force of
water creating a moment which counter acts the torque of the weight on the balancing arm
and thus holds the system in equilibrium. This was done in three sets to give and accurate
and verifiable report of our findings.
The depth of immersion is noted on the scale that is supplied on the sides as well as the
magnitude of the weight that is added on the balancing arm, this data along with the
aforementioned and proved formulas, are combined to give a very accurate description of the
dynamic interactions that take place within the apparatus.
6
Equipment used in the fluid mechanics lab
7
B – 75 mm h’’ - Distance of the line of action
of force below pivot
d – depth of immersion
d – depth of immersion
Data Set 1
1. Hydrostatic Force – Theoretical (Formula 1)
8
4. Hydrostatic Force – Actual (Formula 4)
F = (mgL)/(H – d/3)
= (0.1)(9.81)(.275) ÷ (.2 – 0.066/3)
= 1.5156 Newton
Data Set 2
1. Hydrostatic Force – Theoretical (Formula 1)
Data Set 3
1. Hydrostatic Force – Theoretical (Formula 1)
9
= 3.2052 Newton
Hydrostatic Force
Actual Hydrostatic Force Theoretical Hydrostatic Force Actual vs. theoretical accuracy Margin of error
(N) (N) (%) (%)
1.5156 1.6025 94.5772 5.4228
2.3391 2.4136 96.9133 3.0867
3.2052 3.3201 96.5393 3.4607
Interpretation of data
It is obvious from the start that the theoretical data and the experimental data have a definitive
correlation, they are very rarely within a error margin of more that 5 % and when one considers the
10
vast amount of variables that could have affected the data readings obtained in a lab the answers are
more than satisfactory to prove the theory matches the practise
One discrepancy that stands out above the rest is the first reading of a mass of 100 grams and a
immersion depth of 66 mm, this measurement stands out from the rest in that in both the
measurement of hydrostatic force and the position of the line of action of the hydrostatic force, the
theory and the practise differ with 5.4228- and 5.3933 % respectively, the reason for this is mainly suspected to
be human error where the student had to “get his eye in” and the subsequent measurements proved to more accurate
than the latter with error margins of not more than 3.4607%.
But even with the seemingly agreeable data the question still lingers….why are the theoretical answers and the
practical answers not a perfect match ? When one investigates the circumstances and the procedures followed there
seems to a satisfactory appeal.
1. The actual density of the water we used was never definitively recorded and the theoretical density of
1000kg/m3 was accepted as the norm, if the density was higher or lower it would have without a doubt have
shifted the line of action of the hydrostatic force and thus the moments value would have increased or
decreased depending on weather the density was more or less than the theoretical value
2. When pouring in the water there may have spilled some liquid onto the quadrant and the balancing arm thus
introducing variables into the equation that were not taken into account when the magnitudes of the forces
were determined
3. The pivot although very precisely manufactured still has a amount of friction in it that was also neglected but in
practise has an effect on the readings because it resist motion and may have initiated a “false” condition of
equilibrium if only the weight and hydrostatic forces were considered as acting forces
4. The accuracy of the measuring instruments used may have become corrupt and therefore have given values
that would have provided erroneous answers
5. Refraction of light through water, when one looks through water at an object,
depending on your perspective the line of sight is shifted higher or lower than the true
line of sight and this would invariably have had an effect on the depth measurement.
The theory and the practise match. When one considers all the gremlins that could
have slipped in during measurement, the inherent inaccuracy of the human eye and
the variance in constants like density of water, temperature and measuring
instruments; answers that seldom have constant error margins of no more than 5 %
over a spectrum of measurement sets seem to compel the scrutinizer that the theory
is sound.
There is no instrument in the world that is 100% correct and the engineering practise
has an established system of tolerances and allowable margins of error etc. which yet
again proves that just because an practical answer isn’t a perfect match to the one
obtained in theoretical calculation does not necessarily mean its incorrect, it may
point out that unknown or neglected variables have had an impact on the answer.
11
The following principles were theoretically learned and practically proved:
The higher the water level rises, the shorter the distance between line of action and
the pivot became, therefore shortening the “lever” that had to oppose the opposing
moment on the balancing arm, the only feasible response to keeping the system in
equilibrium would be for the force to increase – if the system stays in equilibrium and
the lever becomes shorter, the force has o become more to supply the same torque –
M=Fs.
Therefore – the deeper the water became, the more force increased proving that the
formula: F = ρgAh does indeed hold water (pardon the pun).
In conclusion:
1. The higher water level rises, the higher the line of action of hydrostatic force
rises.
2. The deeper an object is immersed, the greater the force acting upon it
becomes.
3. F = ρgAh and h’’ = H – d/3 are sound theoretical formulae that provide
accurate and correct answers. Although it should be noted that they may give
answers of greater magnitude than those obtained in practise but the constant
presence of unknown variables in a system leaves the matter up to individual
precision of measurement preparation .
12
San Diego State University Fluid Mechanics Tutorials – www.sdsu.com
•
•
•
• H
13