Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

COURSE: Thermodynamics I

Class: Second 2016 - 2017

Experiment No: 1
Date of experiment: 25 /10/2016
Date of submission: 2 /11/2016

Activity During Experiment & Procedure

Data & Results

Discussion, Conclusion & Answer to the Questions

Neat and tidy report writing

Overall Mark


Several properties simple Newtonian fluids have. They are

basic properties which cannot be calculated for every fluid, and
therefore they must be measured. These properties are
important in making calculations regarding fluid systems.
Measuring fluid properties, density, is the object of this
experiment, which is defined as its mass per unit volumeIt can obtain
through various means, but in this course we mention two methods
Where , density kg/m3

, mass kg

, volume m3

The density of a fluid is defined as its mass per unit volume and is a function of
pressure and temperature. If a fluid undergoes thermal expansion, its molecules
will be
distributed more widely and will therefore be less dense. There will be fewer
thus less mass, per a given unit of volume. Likewise, if a fluid experiences
contraction due to cooling, the kinetic energy of the molecules in the fluid will
be a lesser
value and they will be packed closer together. In this case, the fluid will have a
mass per unit volume, therefore a higher density than the former case.
= m/V (Equation 1)
Pressure likewise affects the density of a fluid. Consider a fluid with a free
surface exposed to the atmosphere. If the pressure on the surface of the fluid
were to
increase, the density of the fluid would increase due to being compressed. The
of this scenario is also true: a decrease in the pressure on the free surface of the

would decrease its density1. However, the pressure acting on the free surface of
a fluid is
beyond the scope of this experiment and will not be addressed.
A method for determining a fluids density is to assess the buoyant force the
exerts on an object and divide this value by the volume of fluid displaced by the
multiplied by gravitational acceleration. Rearranged algebraically, the buoyant
force may
be obtained by calculating the product of the density, volume and gravitational

Method One:
1) Weigh the empty graduated beaker on a scale and record the mass.
2) Remove the beaker from the scale and measure an arbitrary volume of
selected fluid into the beaker.
3) Weigh the laden beaker on the scale again and record the mass.
4) determine the difference in the masses as per Equation( m fluid ) and record
this mass. This value is the mass of the fluid.
5) Divide the mass of the fluid by the volume measured into the beaker as per
Equation( )and records this value. This will yield the density of the fluid.

Method Two:
1) Select a hydrometer cylinder via an educated guess of the supposed density of
the fluid.
2) Fill a graduated cylinder with an arbitrary amount of selected fluid. The
particular volume for this part of the experiment is in consequential as long as
there is enough to submerge the hydrometer to obtain an accurate reading.
3) Insert the hydrometer into the fluid filled cylinder as close to the center as
possible. If the hydrometer sticks to the walls of the cylinder, it will yield an in
accurate specific gravity for the fluid.

4) Once the hydrometer has stabilized and is no longer bobbing in the fluid, take
a reading of the specific gravity on the neck of the hydrometer at the meniscus
of the fluid as seen in Figure 1 and record this value.
5) Multiply the specific gravity of the fluid obtained in Step 4 by the density
of water (1000 kg/m3 for SI and 62.4 lbm/ft3 for BG) as per
equation( S.G). This calculation yields the density of the fluid.

Discussion & Conclusion

The buoyant force exerted by a fluid on a submerged object is a function of the
fluids density. This concept is clearly outlined by Equation 2, where the buoyant force
is the product of the density, displaced volume and gravitational acceleration. For a
constant displacement of volume, the buoyant force will increase proportionally with the
density of a fluid. This also implies that an increase in volume while density is held
constant will yield an increase in the buoyant force.
However, for this experiment, the calculation of the buoyant force acting on the
submerged sphere neglects the force of weight exerted by the testing apparatus acting
parallel and opposite. This weight acting opposite and parallel will cause for a decrease
in the apparent buoyant force exerted on the sphere. This, perhaps, explains why the
experimental values of the density are greater than the accepted values for each
respective fluid. As seen in Equation 8, the components of the buoyant force reside in the
denominator of the density expression. If the weight of the apparatus were to negate a
portion of the buoyant force, a lesser denominator would be produced. Therefore, a
higher calculated density would be yielded due to the error in the buoyant force
Other sources of error in this experiment also interfered with calculating an
experimental density that was in agreement with each respective accepted density. One
such error was a possible contamination of the fluid samples used in the lab. From a
visual inspection, it was clear that the samples had been cross contaminated from prior
use. However, this contamination would most likely not interfere with the calculated
values to a great extent.
Another source of error, which noticeably hampered density calculations, was the
inability to remove all the mass of the fluid from the sphere between trials. Upon
removing the testing apparatus from the fluid and drying it as thoroughly as possible, it
was noted that the strain indicator displayed a non-zero value. This indicates that any
residual mass of fluid on the apparatus will interfere with the next strain reading. The
strain indicator device was recalibrated between trials to counteract this discrepancy.
However, as indicated by Tables 2 through 5, for three of the four fluids tested, the
indicated strain increased with each successive trial.
Improvements for this experiment are in order. One such improvement would be
to assess the cantilever beam materials modulus of elasticity prior conducting the
experiment. Although this value was provided with the material, not all materials have
the exact values prescribed by the manufacturing process. Another improvement that
would help target accepted density values for the fluids would be to take more data points

for each sample. To get an accurate representation, more data points subjected to
Chauvenents rule would yield more accurate results. Although the results are slightly
skewed from accepted values, statistically speaking, the calculated densities are

Data Usage
Sample Calculation for Density of Olive Oil using Equation 8
= (75.5e9 Pa * 0.0219m * (0.000813m)2 * 281) = 999 kg/m3
(6 * 9.81m/s * (4/3) * *(0.0381m/2)3 * 0.1803m)
Sample Calculation for the Average Density of Glycerine
[(1355 + 1366 + 1373 + 1376) kg/m3] / 4 = 1367 kg/m3