University Of Sharjah

College Of Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering

Fluid Mechanics Laboratory

0401344
Mark:

/ 100
Summer 2021-2022
Experiment #2: Pressure gauge, Dead weight calibrator

Experiment #3: Centre of Pressure and hydrostatic force

on a submerged body

Experiment #4: Free and forced Vortex flow

Course Instructor: Eng. Ali Tahmaz

Lab Engineer: Eng. Tariq Alhomsi
Section no.: 11
Date of Experiment: 14/06/2022 to 21/06/2022
Date of Submission: 25/06/2022

Group Number:
Student ID Student Name
Abdullah Bayram U15104468
Humaid Yousif U19200025
Maadh Ahmed U19103621
Rashed Mohamed U19106290
Mohammed Nuwaid U20103535
Mohammed Saad U18200058
Tamer Abdulkarim U18100017

1|Page
Table of Content:

Experimental Procedure and records and summery of results…………………………………………………………3

Sample Calculations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...8

Graphs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14

Discussion And Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20

2|Page
 Experimental Measurements and records and summary of results:

Pressure gauge Experiment measurements – Bourdon Gauge Exp.2

Measured mass (kg) Actual mass (kg) Gauge Reading (Bar)

0.38155 0.385 0.346

0.19198 0.193 0.498

0.57816 0.578 0.98

0.57872 0.578 1.49

0.57759 0.578 1.99

0.57898 0.578 2.59

Pressure gauge Experiment results – Bourdon Gauge

Cumulative Cumulative Actual Gauge Absolute Relative Error Error of Full Max Degree
Measured Actual Pressure Reading Error Є% Scale of
Mass (𝒌𝒈) Mass (𝒌𝒈) 𝑷𝑨 𝑷𝒈 Є𝑭𝒖𝒍𝒍% Uncertainty
(𝒌𝑷𝒂) (𝒌𝑷𝒂)

0.57353 0.385 33.4 34.6 1.2 3.592814371 0.463320463 0.008999704

0.57353 0.578 50 49.8 0.2 0.4 0.07722 0.007778

1.15169 1.156 100 98 2 2 0.772201 0.00382

1.73041 1.734 150 149 1 0.666667 0.3861 0.002232

2.308 2.312 200 199 1 0.5 0.3861 0.00192

2.88698 2.89 250 259 9 3.6 3.474903 0.001337

3|Page
Case – 2 Complete Immersion Trial – 1 Trial – 2 Trial 3

Temperature (°C) 25 25 25

Total Weights Added W (N) 2.5 3 3.5

Water Depth y (mm) 114 125 138

Submerged Wall Center of Gravity Depth hc 64 75 88

(mm)

Theoretical Hydrostatic Force Fth (N) 4.69 5.50 6.46

Experimental Hydrostatic Force Fexp (N) 4.06 4.93 5.82

Center of Pressure Depth hp (mm) 77.02 86.11 97.47

Error Є% 13.43 10.36 9.91

4|Page
 Trial #3 – Free Vortex Experiment

hmax (mm) ρ (kg/m^3) g (mm/s^2) Orifice Diameter

(mm)

180 997.07 9810 24

Reading No. Vortex Measured Flowrate Calculated Theoretical Error

Radius r Head hm Head hc velocity vth
(mm) C (mm) (mm/s) Є%
(mm)
(mm^2/s)

20 127 20394.7 121.6 1070.3 4.4

22.5 135 21141.6 133.8 951.3 0.89

25 143 21300.5 142.6 856.2 0.28

27.5 147.5 21959.5 149.1 778.4 1.07

30 152 22235.6 154.04 713.5 1.32

5|Page
 Radius of Pitot Total Pitot Theoretical Measured
Head rph (mm) Head Hph velocity vth Velocity vm
(mm) (mm/s) (mm/s) Error Є%

15 140 1427.1 1656.5 16.07

25 50 856.2 989.9 15.6

30 40 713.5 885.4 24.09

Trial #3 – Forced Vortex Experiment

Ho (mm) ρ (kg/m^3) g (mm/s^2) N

W
(Rpm) (rad/s)

26.65 997.07 kg/m^3 9810 mm/s^2 86 Rpm 9.006

Rad/s

6|Page
Reading No. Vortex Distance x Distance y Measured Vtheoretical Calculated
radius r (mm) (mm) head hm (mm/Sec) head-hc
(mm) (mm) (mm)

0 6.65 343.35 26.65 0 343.35

30 7.8 342.2 27.8 270.18 345.92

50 8.6 341.4 28.6 450.3 351.73

70 10.5 339.5 30.5 630.4 359.75

90 12.7 337.3 32.7 810.5 370.78

6 110 16 334 36 990.7 384.02

7|Page
Sample Calculations:

Exp.2

Cumulative mass = summation of the whole mass above the gauge at a certain point (for both actual
and measured)

= 0.38155 + 0.19198 + 0.57816 + 0.57872 + 0.57759 + 0.57898

= 2.88698kg (at the end of loading phase)

Gauge reading (kPa) = Gauge reading (Bar) * 100

= 0.346 * 100 = 34.6kPa

Absolute error = |Measured value – Actual value|

= |34.6 – 33.4| = 1.2kPa

Absolute relative error % = (Absolute error / Actual value) * 100

= (1.2 / 33.4) * 100 = 3.592814371%

Error of full scale = (Absolute Error / Maximum value) * 100

= (1.2 / 259) * 100 = 0.463320463%

2 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 2 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟−𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 2

Max degree of uncertainty = √( 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
) +( 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
)

2 0.385−0.38155 2 0.012−0.0119 2
=√( ) +( ) = 0.008999704
0.385 0.012

8|Page
Exp.3 Partial Emersion

Use ρ = 997.07 kg/m³.

- The theoretical hydrostatic force Fth in N.

1 1
Fth = ρgby² Fth= ( ) (997.07) (9.81) (0.075) (0.057) ²
2 2
Fth = 1.19 N

- The experimental hydrostatic force Fexp in N.

𝑊𝐿 (0.5)(0.265)
Fexp = 𝑦 Fexp = 0.057 = 0.73 N
𝑎+𝑑− 0.1+0.1−
3 3

- The depth of center of pressure hp in mm.

2 2
hp = y hp = 3(57) = 38.00 mm
3

- The error in terms of percentage Є%

𝐹𝑡ℎ−𝐹𝑒𝑥𝑝 1.19−0.73
Є% = | | x 100 Є% = | | x 100 = 38.66 %
𝐹𝑡ℎ 1.19

9|Page
Exp.3 Complete Emersion

- The depth of center of gravity hc in mm.

𝑑 100
Hc = 𝑦 − hc = 114 − = 64 mm
2 2

- The theoretical hydrostatic force Fth in N.

Fth = ρghcbd Fth = (997.07)(9.81)(0.064)(0.075)(0.1)
Fth = 4.69 N

- The experimental hydrostatic force Fexp in N.

𝑊𝐿 (2.5)(0.265)
Fexp = 𝑑 𝑑2
Fexp = 0.1 (0.1)2
= 4.06
𝑎+ + 0.1+ +
2 12ℎ𝑐 2 12(0.064)

- -The depth of center of pressure hp in mm.

𝑑2 1002
hp = ℎ𝑐 + hp = 64 + = 77.02
12ℎ𝑐 12(64)

- The error in terms of percentage Є%

𝐹𝑡ℎ−𝐹𝑒𝑥𝑝 4.69−4.06
Є% = | | x 100 Є% = | | x 100 = 13.43 %
𝐹𝑡ℎ 4.69

10 | P a g e
Exp.4 Part 1

Flowrate C (mm^2/s):

𝑪 = √𝟐𝒈𝒓𝟐(𝒉𝒐 − 𝒉𝒎). C =√2(9810)(20)(180 - 127) = 20394.7 mm^2/s

Flowrate Average:

Cavg =
20394.7 + 21141.6 + 21300.5 + 21959.5 + 22235.6/5 = 21406.38 mm^2/s

Calculated Head hc (mm)

𝒉𝒄 = 𝒉𝒐 – 𝑪𝒂𝒗𝒈^2/ 𝟐𝒈𝒓^2 hc = 180 – 21406.38^2/(9810)(20)^2

Theoretical velocity
Vth = Cavg/r , for table 1 , vth = 21406.38/20 = 1070.3 mm/s

Error %
E% = |hc – h𝒎/hc | ∗ 100 , Є % = |121.6 – 127/ 121.6 | ∗ 100 = 4.4

Theoretical velocity

Vth = Cavg/rph , for table 2 , vth = 21406.38/15 = 1427.1 mm/s

11 | P a g e
Measured velocity

𝒗𝒎 = 𝟏𝟒𝟎√𝑯𝒑h , vm = 140√140 = 1656.5 mm/s

Error %

Є% = |vth– v𝒎/vth | ∗ 100 , Є % = |1427.1– 1656.5/1427.1 | ∗ 100 = 16.07

Exp.4 Part 2

1)
To calculate the measured head hm, we use this equation:ℎ𝑚 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 − 𝑋𝑚m
hm = 350 – 6.65 = 343.35 mm

2)
To calculate the angular velocity ω, we use this equation:ω = 2×𝜋×𝑁
60
2×𝜋×86
= 9.0058
60

3)
To calculate the theoretical
velocity Vtheoretical, we use this equation:𝑉𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = ω × r

Vtheoretical = 9.006 × 30 = 270.18 mm/s

12 | P a g e
4)
To calculate the calculated head h , we use this equation:
hc =
342.2 + 9.006^2 x 30^2/2x9810 = 345.92 mm

13 | P a g e
Graphs:

Exp.2
Gauge Reading Vs Absolute Error
10

8
Absolute Error

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Gauge Reading (kPa)

Calibration Curve
300

250
Gauge Pressure (kPa)

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Standard Actual mass (kg)

Actual Pressure Vs Gauge Reading

300

250
Gauge Reading (kPa)

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Actual Pressure (kPa)

14 | P a g e
Exp.3

15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
Exp.4 Part 1

Velocity Profile - Free Vortex

1200
Theoretical velocity (mm/s)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vortex Radius r (mm)

theoretical Velocity vs Radius Pitot Head

1600
Theoretical velocity (mm/s)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Radius Pitot Head (mm)

17 | P a g e
 Measured head hm and calculated head hc
vs Trial No. free vortex
180
160
140
120
Head mm

100 Measured Head hm

80
60
Calculated Head hc
40 (mm)
20
0
0 10 20 30 40
Trial No.

Measured Head hm vs vortex radius r free

vortex water surface profile
160
140
120
100
80 Vortex Radius r (mm)
60
40 Measured Head hm
(mm)
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

18 | P a g e
Exp.4 Part 2

200

180

160

Measured
140
Calculated
60

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

200

180

160

140

120

100 Measured

80 Calculated

60

40

20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Readings

19 | P a g e
Discussion and Analysis:

This experiment contained 3 different trials where our team was responsible for one of them, our
trial followed the same procedure as the other teams but as it is easy to predict, the measurements
could differ from one team to another, and they will certainly differ from the standard value as
everywhere we are exposed to different types of error!

For the measured mass and the actual mass, there wasn’t that much of an error as the weights
came standardized from the manufacturer, we obtained values of 0.38155, 0.19198, 0.57816,
0.57872, 0.57759 and 0.57898 kg compared to 0.385, 0.193, 0.578, 0.578, 0.578 and 0.578 kg from
the standard, also the pressure values were a little off, as we got readings equivalent to 34.6, 49.8,
98, 149, 199 and 259 kPa from the Bourdon Gauge compared to the standardized values of 33.4, 50,
100, 150, 200 and 250 kPa.

The absolute and relative errors showed us how far away the measurements were from the
standardized values and the obtained values for the relative absolute error where 3.592814371, 0.4,
2, 0.666666667, 0.5 and 3.6 %, the last reading had the highest error so misreading the equipment
was probably the mistake!

With the procedure way of the experiment of the two cases, we measured the depths of water,
theoretical hydrostatics force and experimental hydrostatic force, throughout the first case we get a
high error in the first Trial and then the error was at the minimum range within the trials 2 and 3.

Through this experiment, we get confirmed for a point that Since the centroid of the curvature
and the beam area at the action line from the middle of the pivots can be ignored by the weight of
the quadrant and the beam.

Experimentally, we knew that the Pressure centre is the centre of movement where the force
applied operates as a result of the pressure Whereas the Centre of Gravity is the position of action
where the force resulted from the gravitational forces is equivalent to zero and based on the
geometry of the form.

As a specification of the buoyancy that is related to the air from the outside with the substance of
the body and the fluid inside that are created from the air, all the forces of the buoyant to be
ignored when summing up the moments at the pivot, the centroid of the buoyancy force is the
centroid of the gravitational force, so it is equal to zero for the net vertical forces.

For Exp.3 Graphs:

A- First graphs in case 1 and case 2 were showing the relationship between the Theoretical
Hydrostatic Force and the Experimental hydrostatic Force. There is a wide positive direct
relationship exists between the Theoretical Hydrostatic Force and the

Experimental hydrostatic Force in case 1, Experimentally, we noticed in case 2 that it has a positive
relationship acceptable and closest values (4.69, 5.50, 6.46).

20 | P a g e
B- Second two graphs in case 1 and case 2 has a relationship between Depth of Centre of Pressure
and Depth of Immersion. If depth of centre of pressure has a high number, the depth of immersion
will be having a high number too, so it’s a positive direct relationship in both graphs.

In Case 1, no external force-generating source was used. which makes it free

vortex flow. The findings show that when the vortex radius decreases, the
estimated and observed head will also decrease. For the first four diameters,
the percentage inaccuracy was acceptable and modest. The group computed
the results three times to ensure that there were no errors in the calculation
process, ensuring that there were no errors in the calculation process. The
inaccuracy is often not too significant and is acceptable. Additionally, it can be
seen in section 1 of the velocity profile that as the radius increases, the velocity
decreases and vice versa. This connection between the radius and The
equation Vth (mm/s) clearly shows the velocity.

Because the second experiment was simpler than the first and the group members had become
accustomed to the equipment, the error in this section was reduced. as The table makes it evident
that as the observed depth increases, the theoretical value of v likewise increases. The equation
Vtheoretical (mm/s) = ω r makes this connection quite apparent. Additionally, it is evident from the
table that as the radius increases, the computed head will also increase. The equation Calculated
head clearly illustrates this connection.

By comparing the two parts with each other:

It is evident that whether the vortex is driven or free, its radius is directly inversely proportionate to
its predicted head. In addition, the radius of a free vortex is inversely proportional to its speed, as
demonstrated by the equation Vtheoretical

Thus, as may be shown from the equation Theoretical (mm/s) = ω r. , the velocity in the pushed
vertex is proportional to the radius.

21 | P a g e