What is the derivation for the equation for liquid pressure at depth?

AI Thread Summary
The equation for liquid pressure at depth, P = hρg, is derived from the balance of forces acting on a vertical column of liquid. This relationship holds true for any vertical column, regardless of the shape of the container, as long as the density and gravitational acceleration remain constant. The pressure at a given depth is consistent across different shapes because the pressure force acts perpendicularly to surfaces, ensuring equilibrium. Even in irregularly shaped containers, the pressure at a specific depth will not differ, preventing fluid flow that would alter the liquid levels. Thus, the formula is universally applicable for all fluid columns under these conditions.
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
The pressure of a liquid of constant density at depth 'h' is given by the equation:

P = hρg

I am trying to understand the derivation of this equation. I understand it perfectly for liquid columns with rectangular liquid columns but I can't see why it works if the shape of the fluid column is irregular.

P = \frac{F}{A} = \frac{mg}{\frac{V}{h}} = hρg

The problem is that \frac{V}{h} = A only if it is rectangular shaped, right?
So why should we allowed to generalize it for all fluid columns?

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. For example, the area of a circle with radius r multiplied by a height h gives the volume of a cylinder with radius r and height h.
 
ecneicS said:
No. For example, the area of a circle with radius r multiplied by a height h gives the volume of a cylinder with radius r and height h.

Ok but what if the area of the cross-section changed with the height? Then would it still apply?

BiP
 
Bipolarity said:
Ok but what if the area of the cross-section changed with the height? Then would it still apply?
Yes, it always applies. Suppose you had liquid in a container of irregular shape and you inserted a tube vertically to some depth. If the pressure at the base of the tube resulting from the liquid in the tube were different from that elsewhere at the same level then there would be a flow into or out of the tube. The level at the top of the tube would now be different from that in the rest of the container.
 
Bipolarity said:
P = \frac{F}{A} = \frac{mg}{\frac{V}{h}} = hρg

The problem is that \frac{V}{h} = A only if it is rectangular shaped, right?
So why should we allowed to generalize it for all fluid columns?

BiP

The last equation holds for any vertical column with constant cross-section (prism). If the liquid has any other shape, you can still derive the same equation for imaginary vertical column in the liquid. "vertical" means directed in direction of gravitational acceleration. This way the pressure forces of surrounding liquid on the sides of the column don't affect the force balance in vertical direction (force is a vector and F in the first equation is its vertical component).
 
It is important to remember that force is a vector and that pressure force in liquid is perpendicular to the surface. If the liquid container does not have the shape of a vertical prism, then the force on the bottom surface is not equal to the weight of the liquid, because weight of the liquid is also supported by the walls of the container.

Before I understood that I had troubles understanding the liquid pressure on the bottom of a V shaped vessel: I thought it should be infinite, because "the weight of the water is supported by a single point (zero area)". This assumption is wrong, because V shaped vessel has inclined sides and pressure force on them will have a nonzero vertical component.

Only in case of a vertical column we can assume that the pressure force on the bottom equals the weight of the liquid. Of course we can always define an imaginary vertical column in any liquid container. So the formula

P = \frac{F}{A} = \frac{mg}{\frac{V}{h}} = hρg

is valid for all cases where the density and gravitational acceleration are constant.
 
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