Alanna Andrews

October 22, 2018

BSEN 3310

Hydrostatic Pressure Lab

Abstract
The objectives for this lab were to measure the effect of depth of water on the magnitude
and location of the resultant force, or hydrostatic pressure, exerted on a partially submerged
rectangular surface and a fully submerged rectangular surface. The standard deviation between
the calculated heights and the observed heights of the water as the water level was increased and
decreased were also studied. As the counterweight mass and water level was increased, the
recorded water height, h, and the calculated water height, y, were closely related. However, as
the counterweight was decreased and the water was drained out of the system, the he recorded
water height, h, and the calculated water height, y, progressively varied more, eventually varying
by as much as 139% when the counterweight mass reached 10 kilograms, as shown in Figure 16.

Introduction
This lab focused on the study of hydrostatic pressure, which is the pressure exerted by a
fluid at equilibrium at a given point within the fluid (Çengel and Cimbala, 2018). An
understanding of hydrostatic pressure is important for many engineering applications. For
example, applying hydrostatic pressure to compact a sample of unsaturated soil to determine the
yield point of a soil and observe some of its qualities such as volumetric change due to certain
strain rates and the impact of hydrostatic pressure on bulk weight volume (Kumar and Weber,
1974). Hydrostatic pressure has also been studied as a method of fresh food preservation. In a
study done in 2008, it was found that high hydrostatic pressure can be effective when applied in
fresh food preservation but needs to be adapted for each individual implementation (Schlüter,
Foerster, 2008). Hydrostatics is an important field of study, especially for Biosystems engineers.
It can apply to many different systems, and this lab gave students an opportunity to observe
hydrostatic pressure and familiarized students with methods for observing and analyzing it.

Methods and Materials

For this lab, an Edibon Hydrostatics Pressure System and a set of weights were used, as
shown in Figure 1. Since the pressure forces along the curved surface have lines of actions that
pass directly through the same point, the system renders all surface forces except the force acting
on the vertical surface negligible. Initially, water was added to the system until the balance
bridge arm was level. Then, weights were added and the water level was increased until the
bridge arm was level again. After enough data was obtained, the weight applied to the system
was decreased and the water was drained until the bridge arm was level.
Figure 1: The Edibon Hydrostatic Pressure System and set of weights used for this laboratory.

Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the equations used for analysis of the data and the given dimensions of the
system used. Equations one through three were used for calculations when the rectangular
surface was partially submerged, and equations four through six were used when the rectangular
surface was fully submerged.

Figure 3 shows the plot of mass added versus the y values calculated from equation two in
Figure 6 while the rectangular surface was partially submerged. Figure 3 suggests that when the
plate is partially submerged, there is an exponential relationship between mass and height, which
is further supported by the exponential nature of equation two from Figure 6 that was used for
calculation.

Figure 4 shows the plot of the calculated y values versus the experimentally determined h values
while the rectangular surface was partially submerged. Y was determined using equation 1 from
Figure 2. The data for series one was taken while the weight added and water level were
decreasing, and the data for series two was taken while the weight added and water level were
increasing. The slope of series two was close to one, which indicates that the values of y and h
were almost exactly the same, while the slope of series one was 1.422, which indicates that in
general, the y calculated was higher than the h that was experimentally determined. However, the
values for h were actually higher than the calculated y values, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 5 shows the calculated height of the center of hydrostatic pressure, hp, values versus the
experimentally determined water height values while the rectangular surface was partially
submerged. The data for series one was taken while the weight added and water level were
decreasing, and the data for series two was taken while the weight added and water level were
increasing. The data for both series was very similar, suggesting that there is a linear relationship
between the center of hydrostatic pressure and the water height.
.

Figure 6 shows the calculated resultant buoyant force for each mass added to the system versus
the experimentally determined h values while the rectangular surface was partially submerged.
The data for series one was taken while the weight added and water level were decreasing, and
the data for series two was taken while the weight added and water level were increasing. The
force required to lift the block the same height was higher while the water was being drained
than it was while the water was being added.
Figure 7 shows the relative error calculated between the experimentally determined height of the
water and the calculated height of the water, y, using equation seven from Figure 2, while the
rectangular surface was partially submerged and the mass and water height were increasing.

Figure 8 shows the relative error calculated between the experimentally determined height of the
water and the calculated height of the water, y, using equation seven from Figure 2, while the
rectangular surface was partially submerged and the mass and water height were decreasing.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 suggest that the relative error while the water level was increasing was
lower than the relative error while the water level was decreasing, but both measurements have
fairly irregular plots.
Figure 9 shows the plot of the mass used versus the calculated height of the water, y, while the
rectangular surface was fully submerged. Y was calculated using equation four from Figure 2.

Figure 10 shows the calculated water height versus the experimentally determined water height.
The data from series one was taken while the water height was decreasing, and the data from
series two was taken while the water height was increasing. Figure 10 shows that there was more
deviation between the calculated and experimental water height while the the water height was
increasing.
Figure 11 shows the height of the center hydrostatic center of pressure, hp, calculated using
equation five from Figure 2, versus the experimentally determined water height, h, while the
rectangular surface was fully submerged. The data from series one was taken while the water
height was decreasing, and the data from series two was taken while the water height was
increasing. Both series were similar, and both suggest that there is an exponential relationship
between the center of hydrostatic pressure and the experimentally determined water height.

Figure 12 shows the graph of the force, F, calculated using equation six from Figure 2, versus the
experimentally determined water height, h, while the rectangular surface was fully submerged.
The data from series one was taken while the water height was decreasing, and the data from
series two was taken while the water height was increasing. Figure 12 shows that as the water
height increased, the amount of force required to lift the block also increased.

Figure 13 shows the relative error, calculated using equation seven from Figure 2, versus the
experimentally determined water height while the rectangular surface was fully submerged and
the water height was increasing.
Figure 14 shows the relative error, calculated using equation seven from Figure 2, versus the
experimentally determined water height while the rectangular surface was fully submerged and
the water height was decreasing.

Figures 13 and 14 show that, in general, as the water height was decreasing the relative error was
higher than the relative error as the water height was increasing.

Partially Submerged Rectangular Surface Fully Submerged Rectangular Surface

Increasing h Weight Added, m Water Level, h Increasing h Weight Added, m Water Level, h
(kg) (m) (kg) (m)

0.010 0.0212 0.250 0.1114

0.030 0.0345 0.270 0.1175

0.050 0.0448 0.290 0.1230

0.100 0.0666 0.310 0.1290

0.120 0.0743 0.350 0.1395

0.140 0.0815 0.400 0.1530

0.200 0.0988 0.410 0.1558

Decreasing h 0.010 0.0490 Decreasing h 0.250 0.1150

 0.030 0.0595 0.270 0.1190

0.050 0.0680 0.290 0.1250

0.100 0.0830 0.310 0.1290

0.120 0.0869 0.350 0.1394

0.140 0.0920 0.400 0.1530

0.200 0.1035 0.410 0.1558

Figure 15 is a table of the masses used and the measured water heights.

Partially Submerged Rectangular Surface

Weight Added, m Experimental Water Height, Calculated Water Height, Relative

(kg) h y Error

Increasing h 0.010 0.0212 0.0205 3.4146

0.030 0.0345 0.0361 4.4321

0.050 0.0448 0.0470 4.6809

0.100 0.0666 0.0678 1.7699

0.120 0.0743 0.0747 0.5355

0.140 0.0815 0.0812 0.3695

0.200 0.0988 0.0987 0.1013

Decreasing 0.010 0.0490 0.0205 139.0244

h
 0.030 0.0595 0.0361 64.8199

0.050 0.0680 0.0470 44.6809

0.100 0.0830 0.0678 22.4189

0.120 0.0869 0.0747 16.3320

0.140 0.0920 0.0812 13.3005

0.200 0.1035 0.0987 4.8632

Figure 16 shows the observed heights, h, versus the calculated heights, y, as well as their percent
relative error.

Conclusion
In an Edibon Hydrostatics Pressure System, the experimentally determined water height
required to produce enough force to counteract weight varies more from the theoretical water
height as the weight and water level decrease after the rectangular surface becomes partially
submerged again. From the graphs produced, the counterweight mass, height of the water,
hydrostatic force, and height of the center of hydrostatic pressure are all linearly related, since
most of the trend lines of the graphs had the highest R value when they were linear. Also, as
counterweight mass increases, so does the force produced, the height of the water, and the height
of hydrostatic pressure. Also, as the water was drained, the variation between the theoretical
water height, y, and the measured water height, h, increased, especially after the rectangular
surface became partially submerged.
References

Çengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2018). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and

Applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Kumar, L., & Weber, J. A. (1974). Unsaturated soil compaction by different stress paths.
In Transactions of the ASAE (pp. 1064-1069). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of
Agriculture Engineers. doi:10.13031/2013.37028

Schlüter, O., Foerster, J., Fröhling, A., Geyer, M., Knorr, D., & Herppich, W. B. (2008).
Stress response of physiological active food products on high hydrostatic pressures up to
250 MPa. 2008 Providence, Rhode Island, June 29 - July 2, 2008.
doi:10.13031/2013.24759