American University of Beirut

Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture

MECH 314
Project 1: Draining a fluid from the side of a container
Due March 21, 2021

Team Member Name ID

1 Jihad Jundi 202000646
2 Omar Shaaban 202001660
3 Yara Mahmoud 201900363

Professor: Dr. Ghanem Oweis

A.1-Items and tools:

Apparatus Detailed description

Water bottle 1.5 L empty plastic water bottle that has a height
equal to 32.5 cm and a diameter equal to 8.4 ± 0.3
cm. This approximation of the diameter was obtained
after taking 10 measurements of the bottle using the
same ruler.

This bottle was filled up to 21 cm (which was the

initial height in the experiment) to maintain a
cylinder-like shaped volume of the water.
30 cm metal ruler Metal ruler, 30 cm in length, was used to mark the
bottle from 0 till 24 cm using a permanent black
marker before starting the experiment. In addition,
this ruler was used during the experiment to measure
the Δx distance traveled by the water jet.

Black permanent marker Black permanent sharpie marker was used to mark the
bottle.

Thin needle Thin sharp metal needle that has a length of 5 cm and
a diameter of 1 mm (except at the very tip)
Thick screwdriver Thick screwdriver with a diameter of 4.5 mm (except
at the very tip).
Blue tack Faber-Castell blue tack was used to seal the hole
before filling the bottle with water.
Lighter Lighter was used to heat both needles in order to be
able to insert them easily.
Phone used as a stopwatch/ timer An Apple iPhone was used as a timer to measure the
time of the entire experiment.
2 x Phones used to videotape the Two other Apple iPhones were used to video the
experiments. experiment. One was placed on the side (held on a
stand), and the other was placed in front of water
bottle to measure the change in height of water
throughout the experiment.
Red food coloring After filling the water bottle with water, 2-3 drops of
food coloring were added.
Plier Metal plier used to hold the needle in place while
heating it using a lighter.
Glass Pan Glass 35 cm spacious pan used to hold the water that
is ejected from the hole throughout the experiment.
Water Fluid used to fill the bottle.

Table 1: Apparatus used in the experiment

A.2-Experimental Setup:

Figure 1: Image of Experimental Set up

A.3-Procedure and Difficulties:

Experimental procedure for the small hole:

Before beginning the experiment, an empty 1.5 L plastic bottle was carefully chosen to
have a small fluctuation in diameter, with respect to the change in height, equal to 8.4 ± 0.3 cm,
in order to reduce errors in the variables we want to calculate. We did not choose a smaller bottle
for two reasons: 1) It would be harder to gather data (points) if we used a 0.5 L botte for
example. 2) The time elapsed during the experiment would be much smaller for a smaller bottle
so less points could be gathered for our plots. Moreover, we started by using the 30 cm metal
ruler and the black permanent marker to mark the bottle from 0 up till 24 cm in height. This was
made in order to thoroughly and easily monitor the change in the height of the water throughout
the experiment.

After that, we used the plier to hold the pin in a fixed position and then used the lighter to
heat the tip of the pin in order to puncture a hole into the bottle easily. The purpose of this plier is
to protect our hands from the fire and the high temperature of the pin that could burn our hands if
we touched it directly. Due to metals being very good conductors, heating the pin with a lighter
allowed us to smoothly puncture the hole without causing any dent in the area around that hole.
In addition, we chose to puncture the hole at a height close to the surface of the bottle which is 8
cm. Afterwards, we placed a small piece of blue tack to cover the hole so we can be able to fill
the bottle up with liquid water without any water escaping from the hole.

The water bottle was filled up till 21 cm exactly and then we proceeded to add 2 to 3
drops of the red food coloring liquid in the water and waited a few seconds until all the water
turned into a bright red color. The purpose of adding this red food coloring was to be able to
observe the level of liquid water more accurately and easily.

The clear glass pan was chosen for the purpose of collecting the water in a neat and clean
way in order to be able to use it again for the big hole. The 30 cm metal ruler was placed in the
pan to measure the horizontal distance of the trajectory by placing the surface of the bottle
(where the hole was punctured) at a position of 5 cm with respect to the ruler. The position
where the water jet hits the pan is considered to be the final position. The displacement of the
trajectory is then calculated by subtracting 5 cm from the final position at different time instants
with respect to the ruler.

An iPhone was used as a stopwatch to measure the time elapsed from the beginning till
the end of the experiment. We started the stopwatch and removed the blue tack at the exact same
instant, and took measurements of the time and the distance of the trajectory at every 0.5 cm
decrease in height of the water. We stopped the timer at a height of 10.75 cm due to the fact that
no more water was exiting the hole. This is caused by the surface tension forces between the gas
and the liquid water at the hole due to its sharp edges and its small diameter. In this experiment,
we recorded 22 values and the total time elapsed was 10 minutes and 19 seconds.

The most challenging part in this experiment was definitely reading the values of the
horizontal distance x of the trajectory. It was very hard to observe especially when the water
covered the scale of the ruler. We had to be very careful and as accurate as possible while
reading the values from the recorded videos of the experiment. In addition, when the waterjet hit
the pan, while its entire surface was covered with water, it was hard to point out the exact
position of that point due to the distortion created by this waterjet.
 Figure 2: Schematic of the Experimental Set up

Experimental procedures for the large hole:

For the experiment with the large hole, the same method and setup were used. Every
parameter in the experiment was maintained and remained unchanged. The time needed for the
level of water to reach the final height (which is 8 cm) was 77 seconds.

Assumptions made during experiment:

- Frictionless flow of water out.

- Estimation that the diameter of the bottle was a constant 8.4 cm.
- The pressure at the inlet (top of bottle on the water) is equal to the pressure at the outlet
(hole).
B.1- Plot for Velocity vs Time for the smaller hole:

V2a: Quasi-Bernoulli Method: 𝑉2𝑎 = √2gh

𝐷
V2b: Mass Conservation Method: 𝑉2𝑏 = 𝑉1 ( 𝐷𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 )2
ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒

V2c: Full Bernoulli Method: 𝑉2𝑐 = √2𝑔ℎ + 𝑉1 2

𝑔 𝑥2
V2d: Trajectory Analysis Method: 𝑉2𝑑 = √ 2 ∗ 𝑦

Figure 3: Velocity vs Time for a smaller hole

Figure 4: V2b vs Time Error for smaller hole
B.2-Plot for Velocity vs Time for a larger hole:

Figure 5: Velocity vs Time for a larger hole

 Figure 6:V2b vs Time Error for larger hole

C.1-Discussion on Error:

If we consider an error of 0.5mm in measuring the hole diameter, the only velocity that
would be affected by this error would be V2b, as V2a, V2c and V2d do not take into consideration
the diameter of the hole when calculating them as observed in the equations listed above.
𝐷
Meanwhile in the mass conservation method, we use the formula 𝑉2𝑏 = 𝑉1 ( 𝐷𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 )2 , hence any
ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒
error in measuring the hole will greatly affect the velocity.

As shown in the figure of the larger hole, the error of the velocity is large at first, but it
slowly converges to the actual value as time passes by. Meanwhile in the figure of the smaller
hole, we have 2 offsets for the error. The lower offset is due to an error of +0.5mm in the
diameter of the hole and it resulted in a decrease of the velocity across all points, while the upper
offset is due to an error of -0.5mm which resulted in a drastic increase of the velocity across all
points. The error was more evident in the smaller hole due to the fact that the error is very high
compared to the actual diameter in the small hole, while in the larger hole it was smaller
compared to its diameter, hence it did not have as big of an impact on the velocity.
C.2-Discussion on Observations:

The graph of the velocity is decreasing with time. V2a and V2c appear to overlap and are
decreasing approximately linearly for both holes. For the big hole, it decreases from a velocity of
1.6052 m/s at t=0 to reach a 0 velocity at t=77s, while for the small hole, it decreases from a
velocity of 1.597m/s at t=0 to reach a velocity of 0.735m/s at t=619s. We notice that the smaller
hole doesn’t actually reach a 0 velocity by the end of the experiment, and that is due to the fact
that for the smaller hole it will need a much longer duration to actually get a 0 velocity. Also, the
reason behind the similarity of V2a and V2c is due to the fact that they follow the same equation
(Bernoulli), but in V2a we assume V1 to be negligible while in V2c we took into account V1, and
because V1 was almost negligible, both velocities turned out to be approximately the same.

Now looking at V2b, the graph is decreasing in value overall. However, we notice there
are several jumps along the way. For example, for the bigger hole, V2b jumps from a value of
1.206m/s to 1.508m/s as time increases from 2.44s to 5.2s, but then as time increases to 7.9s, the
velocity jumps back down to 1.161m/s. For the smaller hole, the velocity jumps down from
1.68m/s to 1.35m/s as time passes from 93s to 137s, and then jumps back up to a velocity of
1.533m/s at t=189s. This fluctuation in the velocity is due to the way we measured V1, which is
by calculating the height difference in a small time interval and assuming the behavior to be
𝛥ℎ
linear (and so 𝑉1 = ). This technique is prone to human error and is not entirely accurate, thus
𝛥𝑡
the fluctuations. In addition, the velocity in the larger hole reaches 0.071m/s at t=77s, and the
velocity in the smaller hole reaches 0.928m/s at t=619s. We notice that neither velocity truly
reaches 0, but the value of the bigger hole is almost 0, in fact, it is not actually 0 due to human
error in finding V1. As for the smaller hole, in addition to the fact that there is a human error, it
requires more time (duration) than the duration of the experiment.

And last but not least, we have the graph of V2d, which is calculated using experimental
𝑔 𝑥2
data by the formula 𝑉2𝑑 = √ 2 ∗ 𝑦
, where g is gravity, y is the distance between the hole and the
ground, and x is the distance the trajectory of the water reaches. The only variable in this
equation is x. To acquire this equation, we approximated using particle analysis, which assumes
𝑔
no friction or air drag, and we get 2 equations 𝑥 = 𝑉2𝑑 ∗ 𝑇 and 𝑦 = ( 2 ) (𝑇)2 , and from these 2
equations we derived the above one for V2d in relation to x only. However, this method is not
very accurate as we cannot neglect the effect of friction or air drag when trying to find V2d. In
addition, we are assuming that V2d only has a horizontal component and are neglecting the
vertical component which is not the true case. In the graph of the larger hole, the velocity
decreases from a value of 1.6052m/s to reach 0 as time passes from 0 to 77s, while for the
smaller hole, it decreases from 1.4877m/s to reach 0 as time passes from 0 to 619s.

As for the ground truth in V2 vs time, the method that best fits the true value of V2 is the
one with the least assumptions and least discrepancies/errors.
 Considering V2b, it is prone to human error which will cause the velocity to fluctuate, in
addition to the fact that a small error in the diameter will also cause the velocity to differ as
observed in C.1. Therefore, V2b is not a good representative of the true velocity. Also, V2d is not
a good representative as we cannot neglect the effects of friction and air drag, nor can we neglect
the vertical component of the exit velocity.

This leaves velocities V2a and V2c, which are both almost the same, with the difference
that V2c considers V1 while V2a neglects it. Both velocities follow the Bernoulli equation, where
V2a is the quasi-Bernoulli equation while V2c is the full Bernoulli equation. Both equations are a
good representative for the velocity, however since the full Bernoulli takes V1 into account, it is
safe to say that the full Bernoulli equation is the best method that fits the true value of V2.

D-Data:

For smaller hole:

D1= 8.4 cm
D2= 1 mm
Height of Hole= 8 cm

Time(s) Height of Water(cm) Distance X(cm)

0 13 19
26 12.5 17
49 12 15.5
72 11.5 14
93 11 14
114 10.5 13.5
137 10 13
166 9.5 12
189 9 11.5
212 8.5 11
242 8 10
270 7.5 9.5
296 7 9
334 6.5 8
362 6 7.5
401 5.5 6.5
430 5 5.5
478 4.5 4.5
510 4 3.5
557 3.5 2.5
600 3 0.5
619 2.75 0
Table 1: Results for the Smaller Hole
For larger hole:
D1= 8.4 cm
D2= 4.5 mm
Height of Hole= 8 cm

Time(s) Height of Water(cm) Distance X(cm)

0 13 20.5
1.2 12.5 18.5
2.44 12 18
4.09 11.5 17.5
5.2 11 17
6.4 10.5 16.5
7.9 10 16
9.4 9.5 15.5
10.7 9 15
12.2 8.5 14.5
13.75 8 14
15.35 7.5 13.5
16.8 7 13
18.7 6.5 12.5
20.5 6 11.6
22.6 5.5 11.2
24.1 5 10.5
26.4 4.5 9.5
28.5 4 9
30.9 3.5 8
32.9 3 7.5
35.9 2.5 6.5
38.6 2 5.5
42.1 1.5 4.5
45.5 1 2.5
52.6 0.5 0.1
77 0 0
Table 2: Results for Larger Hole

E-Discuss Time needed to empty bottle:

To evaluate the time needed to empty the bottle, we could consider doing multiple
experiments with different initial heights for the water, and study the relationship between the
initial height and the time needed for it to empty.

Instead, we can evaluate it using the following relationship to estimate that time:
 1
1 1 𝐷2 2 𝑔 2
𝐻02 − ℎ2 =( ) ∗( ) ∗𝑡
𝐷1 2
We will fix H0 at 13 cm and vary h with respect to time, we will get the following results for the
theoretical time 𝒕𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 and experimental time 𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍, by calculating 𝒕𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍
through the above equation and 𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 using manual measurement:

H0(cm) h(cm) 𝒕𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍(s) 𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍(s)

13 11 92.0506 93
13 9 192.9256 189
13 7 305.7875 296
13 5 436.3106 430
13 3 596.88 600
Table 3: Time for smaller hole

H0(cm) h(cm) 𝒕𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍(s) 𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍(s)

13 11 4.5257 5.2
13 9 9.5272 10.7
13 7 15.1006 16.8
13 5 21.5462 24.1
13 3 29.4759 32.9
Table 4: Time for larger hole
Figure 7: Time vs Height for Smaller Hole
 Figure 8: Time vs Height for Larger Hole

The experimental values of time needed to empty are relatively close to the theoretical
values for both experiments, especially in the smaller hole experiment where the values are
almost identical. Although, we are assuming V1 to be negligible in our calculation for
𝒕𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍. Technically, V1 has a very small value compared to V2 (approximately negligible),
hence the equation we used is plausible for this calculation and we can assume that the values we
reached are correct and acceptable.

The time it takes to empty for the experiment with the larger hole is much shorter than
the time needed for the smaller hole. This is due to the fact that the mass flow rate of the larger
hole is much greater than that of the smaller hole due to the larger cross sectional area. We also
observed that the difference between the theoretical and experimental values is greater in the
larger hole, due to the fact that V1 is not as negligible as that in the smaller hole. Hence, the
assumptions for the smaller hole are more justified.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that our experiment has many uncertainties that
might have a noticeable effect on our experimental values resulting in random and systematic
errors. One of the factors we neglected is friction, since collision of water particles with the
surface of the bottle, the air, and other water particles does indeed occur. Our measurements of
D1, D2, h and H0 must also include some error. All these factors contribute to the difference
between our experimental and theoretical values.

F-Video:

The video of the experiment is submitted on Moodle and can be observed through the following
Google Drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C7MP6ggC_2qJTB8TJaXdsLBZ-BlfWwaC/view