Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

“The Study of Soil Properties of the Poblacion of Lucena City, Quezon Province”

Abstract

The study of pressure forces acting on plane-submerged surfaces is a fundamental topic


in the subject of hydrostatic involving assessment of the value of the net thrust and the concept
of center of pressure, which are so important in the design of innumerable items of hydraulic
equipment and civil engineering projects. This study was conducted to determine the hydrostatic
thrust and center of pressure of the hydrostatic force acting on a plane surface immersed in Salt
water, Glycerin and Diesel when the surface is partially submerged or fully submerged. In
addition, to determine the experimental center of pressure and the theoretical center of pressure
for each of the trials performed. Hydrostatic pressure apparatus was to determine the
hydrostatic pressure of water on a flat surface. Adding weight and then filling the tank with Salt
water, Glycerin and Diesel to the point where the apparatus was in equilibrium. A circular
quadrant was used to simplify calculation of moment, and confine all hydrostatic forces of
consequence to the vertical surface.

Keywords: Hydrostatic Force; Sea Water; Glycerin; Diesel; Center of Pressure;

Introduction

Submerged surfaces are found in many engineering applications. Dams, weirs and water gates
are familiar examples of submerged plane surfaces. It is important to have a working knowledge
of the forces that act on submerged surfaces.

A plane surface located beneath the surface of a liquid is subjected to a pressure due to the
height of liquid above it, as shown in Figure 3.1. Pressure increases linearly with increasing
depth resulting in a pressure distribution that acts on the submerged surface. The analysis of
this situation involves determining a force which is equivalent to the pressure, and finding the
line of action of this force.

Hydrostatics is the branch of fluid mechanics that deals with the force due to the
pressure of the fluid at rest. When a fluid is at rest, there is no relative motion between any two
layers of the fluid; no shear force exists within the fluid. The force acting on a submerged plane
surface is only normal to the area at each point. This force acts in a direction normal to each
surface and is dependent on the depth of that surface. An equation used to calculate the
magnitude of the hydrostatic force on any surface is.

FR = ƴ hcA

Where, ƴ is the specific weight of the fluid, hc is the depth of the centroid of the submerged
surface, and A is the submerged area.

It is vital to give a lot of attention in determining hc and A because of the different ways
required depending on whether the vertical surface is fully submerged, or partially submerged.
In the fully submerged part, hc will be equal to the height of the water minus the vertical plane
height while A will not change with every reading. On the other hand, if the vertical surface is
partially under water, hc are both dependent on the water height and A will always be
determined using h, the depth, and hc is determined by getting the half of A.

The determination of these forces is important in the design of storage tanks, ships,
dams, and other hydraulic structures. The moment about the pivot point can be calculated with
respect to both weights and hydrostatic force. A formula;

FR x d = mg x L,

d = mgL / FR

is used where, mgl is the moment caused by hanging masses and, d is the vertical distance
from the pivot point to the Center of Pressure

In this study, the differen liquids will undergo three trials with different angle and
appended weights to determine the Resultant Force and Location of the Hydrostatic Force on
free surface.

 To determine experimentally the magnitude of the force of pressure (hydrostatic force)

 To verify its point of action (center of pressure) a plane surface.

 To compare the experimental result with the theoretical values.


Materials and Methods

Resources

• Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus


• Measuring Scale
• Set of Weights
• Set of Liquids (For verification)
• Vernier Caliper
• Rulers
Procedure:

1. Counterbalancing the Water Vessel


• Set the water vessel (1) to an angle of α =0°using the detent (2) as shown
• Counterbalance the unit with a rotating slider (3): The stop pin (4) must be precisely in
the middle of the hole for this

2. Performing the Measurement


• Mount the rider (6), set the lever arm on the scale (e.g. l=150 mm)
• Top up with water until the unit is balanced (stop pin (4) at center of hole)
• Read off water level s and enter it in the prepared worksheet (see Appendix)
• Increase the appended weights (7) in increments of 0.5 - 1 N and repeat the
measurement
3. Evaluating the experiment
Measured values:
 s – Water level reading
 l – Lever arm of the force due to weight
 Fg – Force due to weight of the appended weights
4. Determining the Center of Pressure
At a water level s, below the 100 mm mark, the height of the active surface changes with
the water level. If the water level is above that mark, the height of the active surface is always
100 mm.
Meaning:
 s - Water level
 e - Distance of center of pressure D from planar
 center of force C of the active surface
 lD - Distance to center of motion of the unit:

For a water level s < 100 mm:


(pressure has a triangular profile)
For a water level s < 100 mm:
(pressure has a triangular profile)

For a water level s > 100 mm:


(pressure has a trapezoidal profile)
5. Determining the resultant force
The resultant force corresponds to the hydrostatic pressure at the planar center of force C
of the active surface. Thus, the height of water level s must again be differentiated:

Meaning:
 Aact - Superficial content of active surface
 b=75 mm - Width of liquid vessel
 pc - Hydrostat. pressure at planar center of force
 Fp - Resultant force for hydrostat. Pressure on active surface

For s < 100 mm:


(triangular profile)

For s>100 mm:


(trapezoidal profile)

The resultant force is produced as

Centre of Pressure with Water Vessel Tilted

6. Performing the Experiment

• Set an angle α and counterbalance the water vessel as described under 4.1.1.1.
• Enter the characteristic values in the prepared worksheet: Lowest water level st and
highest water level sh of the active surface
• Perform the measurement as described under 4.1.1.2.

7. Evaluating the experiment

The difference between evaluation of the tilted vessel and that of the vertical vessel lies in
the translation of the water levels onto the tilted active surface: A factor cosα must be taken into
account here.
8. Determining the center of pressure
When the water vessel is at a tilt, too, a triangular pressure profile is produced when the
water level is below sh; above that level a trapezoidal profile is produced.

Measured values:
• s - Water level reading
• j-Tilt angle of vessel

Meaning:
• st - Water level at lowest point of vessel
• sh - Water level of active surface at rim
• e - Position of center of pressure
• h - Height of active surface
• lD - Distance between center of pressure/center of motion

For a water level s < sh a triangular profile as follows applies:

For a water level s > sh a trapezoidal profile as follows applies:


9. Determining the resultant force

Meaning:

• Aact - Superficial content of active surface


• b=75 mm - Width of liquid vessel
• pc - Hydrostat. pressure at planar center of force of active surface

For s<sh with h from section 4.2.2.1

For s>sh the trapezoidal profile as follows applies:


The resultant force is produced as

Formulas Used for theoretical Values:

• ;

Where:



Results

Table 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 shows the measured data and results according to the experiment
conducted in accordance to the determination of the location of center pressure and resultant
force of sea water, glycerin & diesel. Table 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6 shows the computed data in
determining the lever arm of the distance between center of pressure and planar center of
gravity, distance between center of pressure and liquid level along the active surface of Sea
Water, Glycerin & Diesel. Table 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 shows the computed data in determining the
lever arm of the resultant force, Distance between planar center of gravity and liquid level along
the active surface, vertical distance of the free surface of the liquid to the location of the
resultant force, Distance between center of pressure and planar center of gravity, Hydrostatic
pressure in planar center of gravity of active surface and Superficial content of active surface of
Sea Water, Glycerin & Diesel. Table 4-10, 4-11 and 4-12 shows the descriptive analysis of the
Experimental and Theoretical Resultant Force of Sea Water, Glycerin & Diesel. Table 4-13, 4-
14 and 4-15 shows the descriptive analysis of the Experimental and Theoretical Location of
Hydrostatic Force from the free surface of Sea Water, Glycerin & Diesel.

Table 4-1

Trial (mm) (mm) l (mm) (N) s

1 0 2 100 27 1 70
2 0 2 100 27 2 92
3 0 2 100 27 2.5 102
4 10 5 102 23 1 60
5 10 5 102 23 2 88
6 10 5 102 23 2.5 98
7 20 14 108 22 1 68
8 20 14 108 22 2 92
9 20 14 108 22 2.5 102
Trial (mm) (mm) l (mm) (N) s

1 0 2 100 22 1 52
2 0 2 100 22 2 74
3 0 2 100 22 2.5 84
4 10 5 102 22 1 54
5 10 5 102 22 2 79
6 10 5 102 22 2.5 86
7 20 14 108 22 1 60
8 20 14 108 22 2 84
9 20 14 108 22 2.5 92
Table 4-2

Table 4-3

Trial (mm) (mm) l (mm) (N) s

1 0 2 100 22 1 58
2 0 2 100 22 2 64
3 0 2 100 22 2.5 94
4 10 5 102 22 1 66
5 10 5 102 22 2 96
6 10 5 102 22 2.5 108
7 20 14 108 22 1 74
8 20 14 108 22 2 102
9 20 14 108 22 2.5 104

Table 4-4

Trial e
1 182.67 25 25.00 8.67 321.12 0.0039
2 175.33 36 36.00 12.33 456.98 0.0056
3 172.00 41 41.00 14.00 518.73 0.0063
4 182.00 24.5 24.13 9.00 333.47 0.0041
5 173.67 37 36.44 13.17 487.86 0.0059
6 171.33 40.5 39.88 14.33 531.08 0.0065
7 180.00 23 21.61 10.00 370.52 0.0045
8 172.00 35 32.89 14.00 518.73 0.0063
9 169.33 39 36.65 15.33 568.14 0.0069
Table 4-5

Trial e
1 182.67 25 25.00 8.67 321.12 0.0039
2 175.33 36 36.00 12.33 456.98 0.0056
3 172.00 41 41.00 14.00 518.73 0.0063
4 182.00 24.5 24.13 9.00 333.47 0.0041
5 173.67 37 36.44 13.17 487.86 0.0059
6 171.33 40.5 39.88 14.33 531.08 0.0065
7 180.00 23 21.61 10.00 370.52 0.0045
8 172.00 35 32.89 14.00 518.73 0.0063
9 169.33 39 36.65 15.33 568.14 0.0069

Table 4-6

Trial e
1 180.67 28 28.00 9.67 236.70 0.0044
2 178.67 31 31.00 10.67 261.18 0.0048
3 168.67 46 46.00 15.67 383.61 0.0071
4 178.00 30.5 30.04 10.32 269.34 0.005
5 168.00 45.5 44.81 15.40 391.77 0.0072
6 165.27 54.59 45.76 15.27 408.10 0.0075
7 175.33 30 28.19 12.33 301.99 0.0056
8 166.00 43.65 41.02 15.61 424.42 0.0075
9 165.33 45.76 43.02 15.96 440.74 0.0075

Table 4-7
1.85 1.80 45.67 46.0098
3.20 3.13 60.33 60.67407
3.94 3.79 66.03 66.66667
1.36 1.27 37.50 37.22949
2.93 2.80 56.13 56.16015
3.64 3.50 62.83 62.95823
1.75 1.48 38.33 38.30853
3.20 2.89 54.33 55.33529
3.94 3.11 56.63 60.3928

Table 4-8

1.25 1.20 33.67 33.33333


2.54 2.47 48.33 48
3.27 3.19 55.00 54.66667
1.35 1.23 33.13 32.92058
2.89 2.71 49.60 49.71679
3.43 3.23 54.22 54.41973
1.67 1.28 31.61 31.6823
3.27 2.72 46.89 48.2122
3.92 3.32 51.98 53.72217

Table 4-9

1.03 0.99 37.67 37.33333


1.25 1.21 41.67 41.33333
2.70 2.65 61.67 61.33333
1.33 1.23 40.36 40.98276
2.82 2.67 60.21 61.13822
3.06 3.34 61.03 68.79529
1.68 1.36 40.52 41.32474
3.18 2.67 56.63 60.3928
3.31 2.80 58.98 62.46499
Statistical Analysis

The researchers selected linear regression as this study’s statistical analysis to compare
Theoretical and Experimental Value of Resultant Force and Location of Hydrostatic Force on
free surface.
Linear Regression
Linear regression attempts to model the relationship between two variables by fitting a
linear equation to observed data. One variable is considered to be an explanatory variable, and
the other is considered to be a dependent variable.

Regression Coefficient

Pearson Product – Moment Coefficient

Figure 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 shows the Linear Regression Analysis of Theoretical Value versus
Experimental Value of Resultant force of Sea Water, Glycerin and Diesel. Figure 8.4, 8.5 and
8.6 Linear Regression analysis of the Theoretical Value versus Experimental Value of the
location of the hydrostatic force from the free surface of Sea Water, Glycerin and Diesel. Table
8-1 shows the average percentage difference between Experimental and Theoretical Resultant
Force of Sea Water. Table 8-2 shows the average percentage difference between Experimental
and Theoretical Resultant Force of Glycerin. Table 8-3 shows the average percentage
difference between Experimental and Theoretical Resultant Force of Diesel. Table 8-4 shows
the average percentage difference between Experimental and Theoretical Location of the
Hydrostatic Force from the Free Surface of Sea Water. Table 8-5 shows the average
percentage difference between Experimental and Theoretical Location of the Hydrostatic Force
from the Free Surface of Glycerin. Table 8-6 shows the average percentage difference between
Experimental and Theoretical Location of the Hydrostatic Force from the Free Surface of Diesel.

Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2

Figure 8.3
Figure 8.4

Figure 8.5
Figure 8.6

Table 8-1

Experimenta Theoretica Percent


l l Difference
1.85 1.80 3%
3.20 3.13 2%
3.94 3.79 4%
1.36 1.27 7%
2.93 2.80 5%
3.64 3.50 4%
1.75 1.48 18%
3.20 2.89 11%
3.94 3.11 27%
Average 9%

Table 8-1
Experimenta Theoretica Percent
l l Difference
1.85 1.80 3%
3.20 3.13 2%
3.94 3.79 4%
1.36 1.27 7%
2.93 2.80 5%
3.64 3.50 4%
1.75 1.48 18%
3.20 2.89 11%
3.94 3.11 27%
Average 9%

Table 8-3

Percent
Experimental Theoretical Difference
1.03 0.99 4%
1.25 1.21 3%
2.70 2.65 2%
1.33 1.23 8%
2.82 2.67 5%
3.06 3.34 8%
1.68 1.36 23%
3.18 2.67 19%
3.31 2.80 18%
Average 10%

Table 8-4
Experimenta Theoretica Percent
l l Difference
45.67 46.01 1%
60.33 60.67 1%
66.03 66.67 1%
37.50 37.23 1%
56.13 56.16 0%
62.83 62.96 0%
38.33 38.31 0%
54.33 55.34 2%
56.63 60.39 6%
Average 1%

Table 8-5
Experimenta Theoretica Percent
l l Difference
33.67 33.33 1%
48.33 48.00 1%
55.00 54.67 1%
33.13 32.92 1%
49.60 49.72 0%
54.22 54.42 0%
31.61 31.68 0%
46.89 48.21 3%
51.98 53.72 3%
Average 1%
Percent
Experimental Theoretical Difference
37.67 37.33 1%
41.67 41.33 1%
Table 8-6 61.67 61.33 1%
40.36 40.98 2%
60.21 61.14 2%
61.03 68.80 11%
40.52 41.32 2%
56.63 60.39 6%
58.98 62.46 6%
3%
Interpretations

Based on the gathered data in Figure 8.1, the values of experimental and theoretical

resultant forces has a Value of 0.9408. Thus, the experimental value is approximately equal

to the theoretical value of resultant forces. Although, the system is accurate for all the tested
liquids. Based on the gathered data in Figure 8.2, the values of experimental and theoretical

resultant forces has a Value of 0.9578. Thus, the experimental value is approximately equal

to the theoretical value of resultant forces. Although, the system is accurate for all the tested
liquids. Based on the gathered data in Figure 8.3, the values of experimental and theoretical

resultant forces has a Value of 0.926. Thus, the experimental value is approximately equal to

the theoretical value of resultant forces. Although, the system is accurate for all the tested
liquids. Based on the gathered data in Figure 8.4, the values of experimental and theoretical

resultant forces has a Value of 0.9881. Thus, the experimental value is approximately equal
to the theoretical value of location of the hydrostatic force from the free surface. Although, the
system is accurate for all the tested liquids. Based on the gathered data in Figure 8.5, the

values of experimental and theoretical resultant forces has a Value of 0.9945. Thus, the

experimental value is approximately equal to the theoretical value of location of the hydrostatic
force from the free surface. Although, the system is accurate for all the tested liquids. Based on
the gathered data in Figure 8.6, the values of experimental and theoretical resultant forces has

a Value of 0.9652. Thus, the experimental value is approximately equal to the theoretical

value of location of the hydrostatic force from the free surface. Although, the system is accurate
for all the tested liquids.

Discussion

While in general the results seem to be in line with what is expected, there is still the
possibility of error. This may be due to a variety of mistakes in the experiment. For example,
there is the possibility of human error in reading when the balance bridge arm is level. This
would lead to an inaccurate water height reading, which would consequently affect everything
height was used to calculate. There may also have been human error in reading the height of
the water in the chamber: also affecting the height measurement and all subsequent
calculations.
Experimentally, a source of error may be in the possibility of water splashing onto the
balance bridge arm while it was poured. This would cause an artificial increase in weight beyond
the weight due to the applied masses. As a result, the hydrostatic force to counteract the
masses moment would also be artificially high, and an artificially high water height would be
read off the pressure system. Finally, the applied masses were not weighed prior to their
application onto the balance bridge arm. Thus, the applied mass may weigh more due to
accumulation of oils from being handled. As a result, an artificially high mass would be
recorded, resulting in what appears to be a water height that it too high. However, these errors
are so minor that it is likely that, even if they were present in the experiment, they would have
little, to no, effect on the results.

Conclusion
This experiment used different formulas to ensure that the theory and the practical use
match. The HM 150.05 Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus accurately measures the height of the
water in the vessel needed to calculate both hydrostatic force acting on the vertical rectangular
quadrant and the center of pressure at which this force acts, with a low standard deviation from
the theoretical values for both partially and fully submerged surfaces. This is confirmed by the
linear plots of theoretical versus experimental values in which the slope is approximately one for
both the partially and fully submerged surfaces. We also determined that:

 The average Resultant Force of Sea Water, Glycerin are 2.87, 2.62 and 2.26 for
experimental value respectively and 2.64 , 2.37 and 2.10 for theoretical value
respectively.

 The average Percentage Difference of the Experimental and Theoretical Resultant force
for Sea Water, Glycerin and Diesel are 9%,11% and 10%. Also, the average percent
difference of the Experimental and Theoretical Location of the Hydrostatic from free
surface are 1% for Sea Water and Glycerin and 3 % for Diesel.

 The hydrostatic force acting on both partially and fully submerged vertical rectangular
surface increases as the height of the fluid (water) in the vessel increases.

References
• Nadeem, 2016 ANALYSIS OF HYDROSTATIC FORCE ON AN ANGULAR BLOCK
IMMERSED IN WATER
• S. Vellaiyan, K. S. Amirthagadeswaran, S. Vijayakumar. (2017) Combustion of stable water-in-
diesel emulsion fuel and performance assessment. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects 39:5, pages 505-513.
• T. Kadota, H. Tanaka, D. Segawa, S. Nakaya, and H. Yamasaki (January 2007)
• “Microexplosion of an emulsion droplet during Leidenfrost burning”.
• Lee, W.J., Y.C. Liu, F.K. Mwangi, W.H. Chen, S.L. Lin, Y. Fukushima, C.N. Liao, and L.C.
Wang. (2011). Assessment of energy performance and air pollutant emissions in a diesel
engine generator fueled with water-containing ethanol-biodiesel-diesel blend of
fuels.Energy36:559199doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.012
• F. Y. Hagos, A. R. A. Aziz, and I. M. Tan, (May 2011). “Water-in-diesel emulsion and its micro-
explosion phenomenon-review,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on
Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN ’11).
• Shaikh FM, et al. Artif Organs. 2010. New pulsatile hydrostatic pressure bioreactor for vascular
tissue-engineered constructs.
• Prystopiuk V, et al. J Cell Sci. 2018. A two-phase response of endothelial cells to hydrostatic
pressure.
• Xie F, et al. Carbohydr Polym. 2018. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure and high pressure
homogenization processing on characteristics of potato peel waste pectin.
• Pei L, et al. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2019. Effect of Temperature on Deformation and Fracture
Behaviour of Nanostructured Polycrystalline Ni Under Tensile Hydrostatic Stress by Molecular
Dynamics Simulation.
• (J. Ghojel, D. Honnery, and K. Al-Khaleefi, “Performance, emissions and heat release
characteristics of direct injection diesel engine operating on diesel oil emulsion,” Applied
Thermal Engineering, vol. 26, no. 17-18, pp. 2132–2141, 2006.)
• (B. S. Bidita, A. R. Suraya, M. A. Shazed, M. A. Mohd Salleh, and A. Idris, “Influence of Fuel
Additive in the Formulation and Combustion Characteristics of Water-in-Diesel Nanoemulsion
Fuel,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 4149–4161, 2014.)
•(Marchaj, C.A. (1985).
•O. Tholosan, J. Garcin, and A. Bianchi (1999).Marine Ecology Progress Series 183, 49-57
•Lee, W.J., Y.C. Liu, F.K. Mwangi, W.H. Chen, S.L. Lin, Y. Fukushima, C.N. Liao, and L.C.
Wang. (2011). Assessment of energy performance and air pollutant emissions in a diesel
engine generator fueled with water-containing ethanol-biodiesel-diesel blend of
fuels.Energy36:559199doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.012
• Javanmardi, F., Léger, P., & Tinawi, R. (2005). Seismic water pressure in cracked concrete
gravity dams: experimental study and theoretical modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering,
131(1), 139-15
• Seed, H. B. (1979). Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of earth and rockfill
dams. Geotechnique, 29(3), 215-263.
• Van Haren, H. (2013). Bottom-pressure observations of deep-sea internal hydrostatic and non-
hydrostatic motions. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 714, 591-611.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2012.507
• Menzies, R., & George, R. (1972). Hydrostatic Pressure—Temperature effects on Deep-sea
Colonization. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section B. Biology, 73, 195-202.
doi:10.1017/S0080455X00002253
• Poirier, J. (1985). The effect of hydrostatic pressure on deformation. In Creep of Crystals:
High-Temperature Deformation Processes in Metals, Ceramics and Minerals (Cambridge Earth
Science Series, pp. 145-168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511564451.006
• Jone, S. (1978). Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on the Creep of Ice. Journal of Glaciology,
21(85), 701-702. doi:10.3189/S0022143000033888
• Keller, J. B. (1998), “Surface tension force on a partly submerged body,” Physics of Fluids,
10(11), 3009-3010
• Black, J. L., Mei, C. C., & Bray, M. C. G. (1971), “Radiation and scattering of water waves by
rigid bodies,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 46(1), 151-164.
• Temperley, H. N. V. (1947), “The behavior of water under hydrostatic tension: III. Proceedings
of the Physical Society,” 59(2), 1999
• Langmuir et al, “Defying conventional wisdom, water can float on oil,” ACS News Service
Weekly PressPac, May 09, 2012.
• Published in: 2016 International Electronics Symposium (IES),
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7861011)
• ANDRES, G.AHMED 2014 Hydrostatic Force and Center of Pressure on Vertical Submerged
Surface.
• T. Enns, P. F. Scholander, and E. D. Bradstreet, 1965 Effect of hydrostatic Pressure on gases
dissolved in water.

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

1338 ARLEGUI ST., QUIAPO, MANILA

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

FLUID MECHANICS
CE 402- CE41FA1
FINAL REQUIREMENT
MANUSCRIPT

“Total Hydrostatic Force on Plane Surface Using Glycerin, Sea Water and Diesel”

SUBMITTED TO:
__________________________
ENGR. WINIFREDO GONZALES

MARCH 2019