Solving Hydrostatic Forces with Integral or Volume/Weight?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a fluid mechanics problem related to hydrostatic forces, specifically whether a vertical component of force acts upward on a dam. While integration is a viable method for solving the problem, there is uncertainty about the existence of this vertical component. It is noted that pressure acts normal to the surface, implying that if the surface has a vertical normal vector, the pressure force will also have a vertical component. A suggested approach is to express the normal vector as a function of x or y to facilitate integration. Overall, understanding the geometry of the problem is crucial for determining the appropriate method of solution.
Link-
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
I am actually trying to solve a problem from fluid mechanics. The especifications of the problem are on the attachment.

I can solve the problem easily by integration, but I'm not so sure if there is a vertical component of a force in the "dam" acting upward. There is a vertical component of the force acting upward?
If there is, there is another method to solve the problem without integration, using properties such as volume, specific weight... to find that vertical component?
 

Attachments

  • scan2.jpg
    scan2.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 432
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what the various parts of your drawing represent. However, in general, pressure always acts normal to the surface. So if the normal vector of your surface at a given point has a vertical component then the pressure force will also have a vertical component. The easiest way to do something like this is to write an expression for the normal vector as a function of x (or y) and then use that in the integration.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top