1. To determine the hydrostatic thrust on a plane surface partly immersed in water.

2. To determine the position of the line of action of the thrust.

3. To compare the position determined by experiment with the theoretical position .
4. To verify the formula for calculating hydrostatic thrust.

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).

Figure 1 Diagram of F1-12 Apparatus

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:

m = mass of weight in kilograms.

g = gravitational acceleration (9.81m/s2).

L = distance between fulcrum and balancing weight in meters.

F = Hydrostatic Thrust in Newton.

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

Partially submerged quadrant (fig. B)

Where:

L = distance between fulcrum and balancing weight in meters.

H = distance from fulcrum to bottom of quadrant in meters.

D = height of quadrant in meters.

d = depth of immersion in meters.

h’ = depth of the centre of pressure in meters.

h’’ = distance of the line of trust below the fulcrum in meters.

The forces present are F (the hydrostatic thrust) and mg (the balancing weight)

Hydrostatic Force - Theoretical

2
Hydrostatic force can be defined as: F = ρgAh

Where:

F = The Hydrostatic force in Newton

ρ = density of water in kg/m3

A = Area defined as: B*d in m2

h = depth of the centroid defined as: d/2, in metres

Thus: F = (1/2) (ρgBd2) Newton

(Formula 1)

Experimental position of the line of force action below

the pivot (h’’)
The moment described previously in the section that causes the system to reach equilibrium
again along the levelling indicator can be described as:

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 moment is thus defined as M = WL = mgL

The two forces have put the system back into its previous state of equilibrium, therefore the
moments are equal i.e.

Fh’’ = mgL

Thus: h’’= mgl/F

But: F = (1/2) (ρgBd2)

Therefore, by substitution:

h’’ = 2mL/ ρBd2

(Formula 2)

Where:

h’’ = distance of the line of trust below the fulcrum in meters.

m = mass of weight in kilograms.

L = distance between fulcrum and balancing weight in meters.

ρ = density of water in kg/m3.

B = width of the end face of the quadrant in meters

d = depth of immersion in meters.

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:

h’ = depth of the centre of pressure in meters.

Ix = the area moment of inertia of the immersed plane relative to its centroid.

A = Area defined as: B*d in m2.

h = depth of the centroid defined as: d/2, in metres.

Thus: Ah = Bd2/2

By substitution:

h’ = 2Ix/Bd2

Utilizing the parallel axis theorem yields the following formula:

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’’

A = Area defined as: B*d in m2.

h = depth of the centroid defined as: d/2, in metres.

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

By examining fig. B we can derive from it the following:

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)

Hydrostatic Force – Actual

By utilizing Formula 3 we can postulate a new formula by substituting another variable for h’’
into the sum of moments equation i.e.

Fh’’ = mgL

But: h’’ = H – d/3

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

• Hydraulic test bench

• Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus
• 50 gram weight disks
• Water
• Measuring cylinder or jug

Hydraulic Test Bench Hydrostatic Pressure Apparatus

L – 275 mm F – Hydrostatic Force

H – 200mm h – Depth of Centroid

D – 100 mm h’ – Depth of Centre of

Pressure

7
B – 75 mm h’’ - Distance of the line of action
of force below pivot

d – depth of immersion

Data Set Water Level (d) Mass (m)

1 0.066 m 0.1 kg
2 0.081 m 0.15 kg
3 0.095 m 0.2 kg
Assume density of water ρ = 1000 kg/m3

L – .275 m F – Hydrostatic Force

H – .200m h – Depth of Centroid

D – .100 m h’ – Depth of Centre of Pressure

B – .075 m h’’ - Distance of the line of action of

force below pivot

d – depth of immersion

Data Set 1
1. Hydrostatic Force – Theoretical (Formula 1)

F = (1/2) (ρgBd2) Newton

= (0.5)(1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.066)2
= 1.6025 Newton
2. Experimental position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’)
(Formula 2)

h’’ = 2mL/ ρBd2

= (2)(0.1)(.275)/(1000)(0.075)(0.066)2
= 0.1684 meters
3. Theoretical position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’) (Formula
3)
h’’ = H – d/3
= (0.2) – (0.066/3)
= 0.1780 meters

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)

F = (1/2) (ρgBd2) Newton

= (0.5)(1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.081)2
= 2.4136 Newton
2. Experimental position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’)
(Formula 2)

h’’ = 2mL/ ρBd2

= (2)(0.15)(.275)/(1000)(0.075)(0.081)2
= 0.1677 meters
3. Theoretical position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’) (Formula
3)
h’’ = H – d/3
= (0.2) – (0.081/3)
= 0.1730 meters
4. Hydrostatic Force – Actual (Formula 4)
F = (mgL)/(H – d/3)
= (0.15)(9.81)(.275) ÷ (.2 – 0.081/3)
= 2.3391 Newton

Data Set 3
1. Hydrostatic Force – Theoretical (Formula 1)

F = (1/2) (ρgBd2) Newton

= (0.5)(1000)(9.81)(0.075)(0.095)2
= 3.3201 Newton
2. Experimental position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’)
(Formula 2)

h’’ = 2mL/ ρBd2

= (2)(0.2)(.275)/(1000)(0.075)(0.095)2
= 0.1625 meters
3. Theoretical position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’) (Formula
3)
h’’ = H – d/3
= (0.2) – (0.095/3)
= 0.1683 meters
4. Hydrostatic Force – Actual (Formula 4)
F = (mgL)/(H – d/3)
= (0.2)(9.81)(.275) ÷ (.2 – 0.095/3)

9
 = 3.2052 Newton

Theoretical vs. Practical Data

Position of the line of force action below the pivot (h’’)

Experimental Distance Practical vs. theoretical accuracy Margin of error

h''e (m) Theoretical Distance h''t (m) (%) (%)
0.1684 0.178 94.6067 5.3933
0.1677 0.173 96.9364 3.0636
0.1625 0.1683 96.5538 3.4462

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 .

Supplied assignment documentation – Mr Abraham

Principles Of Fluid Mechanics, Second Edition – Mr CF Meyer

12
San Diego State University Fluid Mechanics Tutorials – www.sdsu.com

•
•
•
• H

13