Calculating Total Surface Area of a Pool with Varying Depths

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the total surface area of a pool with varying depths, the bottom area is determined by multiplying the length (27.6 meters) by the width (16.4 meters), resulting in 452.64 square meters. The deep end area is calculated as a rectangle with dimensions 16.4 meters by 3.2 meters, yielding 52.48 square meters, while the shallow end area is 16.4 meters by 1 meter, totaling 16.4 square meters. The sides of the pool are trapezoids, with each side's area calculated using the average of the two depths (1 meter and 3.2 meters) multiplied by the pool length, resulting in 57.96 square meters per side. Adding all these areas together gives a total surface area of 637.76 square meters. This method effectively combines geometric principles to solve for the surface area of the pool.
Linus
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
G'day all I'm new here this is my first post. I just found this forum in hope that you all can help me and I've hopfully come to the right place.

i'm pretty bad at maths (actually shocking at it) and this may be a dumb question but any help would be appreciated. I'm doing total surface area. here's the question

Calculate the total surface area of the inside of the pool?

length of the pool is 27.6 metres
width of the pool is 16.4 metres

The pool has a water depth 1 metre at the shallow end and a depth of 3.2 metres at the deep end .

how do i calculate the total surface area?

Please show working out and explain how you did it. Thanks
 

Attachments

  • pool.JPG
    pool.JPG
    10.4 KB · Views: 497
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Erm, don't take what I say as being right (can be very crap at Maths), but I think that to calculate the length of the side that's unknown in the diagram, you use pythagoras h^2=a^2 + b^2 . h is the side you're looking for and use a=2.4 and b =27.6 (I got the 2.4 from breaking up the side that we're looking at into a rectangle and a triangle and taking he 1 m depth away from the depth at the deeper end of 3.4m). Then once you've worked out that length then you calculate the area of each of the sides, breaking up the side nearest us and the one on the opposite side into a rectangle and a triangle (as before), and calculating their areas that way. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (and if I am, blame the wine!).
 
Oh and as for being dumb- no way! If you want dumb you should see half the posts I make (and I'm at uni doing bloody Maths. I figure if the uni people have any sense they should have me out on my ear by the end of this semester!).
 
Oh, and it is 3.4m depth and not 3.2m, right? If it is 3.2 just use 2.2 instead of the 2.4 I mentioned above.
 
If Claire84 will forgive me:

"length of the pool is 27.6 metres
width of the pool is 16.4 metres

The pool has a water depth 1 metre at the shallow end and a depth of 3.2 metres at the deep end ."

Okay, the bottom of the pool is a rectangle with length 27.6 metres and width 16.4 metres. Its area is (27.6)(16.4)= 452.64 square metres.

The "deep" end is a rectangle with width 16.4 metres and height 3.2 metres. Its area is (16.4)(3.2)= 52.48 square metres.

The "shallow" end is a rectangle with width 16.4 metres and height 1 metre. Its area is (16.4)(1)= 16.4 square metres.

The sides are trapezoids with "height" (actually the length of the pool) 27.6 metres and two bases of lengths 1 metre and 3.2 metres. The "average" base is (1+ 3.2)/2= 2.1 metres so the area of each side is (27.6)*(2.1)= 57.96 square metres.

Since there are 2 sides, the total area is 452.64+ 52.48 + 16.4 +57.96 +57.96= 637.76 square metres.
 
Thanks for all of your help, i'll now survive another term.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top