Lesson
The theory — Pressure at Depth
Pressure is force spread over an area, p = F/A, measured in pascals — one pascal is one newton on one square metre. In a liquid that is standing still, the pressure at a depth h below the surface is p = ρgh, where ρ is the density of the liquid and g is 9.81 m/s². Read the formula for what is missing from it: there is no area in it, no volume, and nothing about the container. All three of the page's claims come from that absence. Every pressure here is a gauge pressure, meaning the amount the liquid adds on top of whatever is already pressing on its surface.
What each symbol means
p- pressure, in pascals. 1 Pa = 1 N/m², and a kilopascal is a thousand of them
ρ- density of the liquid, in kg/m³. The only property of the liquid that appears anywhere on this page
h- depth below the surface, in metres. Depth, not height of the vessel, and not the amount of liquid
A- the area being pushed on, in m². Pressure times area is force
g- 9.81 m/s², so that ρgh comes out in pascals
- Assumes
- That the liquid is still and its density is the same everywhere. Both are good for water in a tank and poor for the atmosphere, which is why this page has liquids in it and no gases. Atmospheric pressure is left out of every figure because it cancels: the air pushes down on the surface of the liquid and up on the underside of the base with the same 101 kPa, so it never appears in the force the base carries. A depth gauge in a pool reads the same way, which is why the figures here are the ones you would measure.
- Breaks when
- Once the liquid moves. A pipe with flow in it obeys Bernoulli rather than this, and Bernoulli & the Venturi Effect is where the pressure a moving fluid loses to its own speed is worked out. Compressible fluids break the other assumption: air halves in density about every 5.5 km, so ρgh with a constant ρ is wrong for anything more than a few tens of metres of atmosphere. Very small vessels break it too — in a tube a millimetre or so across, surface tension pulls the liquid up or down by a height this page does not model at all. And the wall force here is per metre of a straight vertical wall; a curved dam carries its load partly by arching into the valley sides, which is a different calculation and the reason arch dams can be thin.
Problem solved in full
-
Pascal's barrel: how much force does half a litre of water put on the lid? 6 steps
A sealed barrel has a lid 0.60 m across. A thin pipe of radius 5 mm is fitted into the lid and filled with water to a height of 5 m. Work out the force the water puts on the lid, and compare it with the weight of the water in the pipe, before reading on. Press Tube on a disc, 1.6 litres to see the same thing at a tenth of the scale.
-
The pipe adds pressure through its height and nothing else. Five metres of water:
-
That pressure acts on the whole lid, which is a disc of radius 0.30 m:
-
Force is pressure times area. Written as a mass it is easier to feel: the lid is carrying about 1.4 tonnes.
-
Now the water that did it. The pipe's bore is 5 mm, so its cross-section is tiny:
-
Divide one by the other. Three hundred and ninety grams of water is putting 13,844 N on the lid:
-
And here is the part worth keeping. Write the ratio out in symbols and the height cancels, because it appears in the pressure and again in the volume. So does the density, and so does g. The multiplication is the ratio of the two areas and nothing else — which is exactly how a hydraulic jack lifts a car.
Answer
13,844 N on the lid, from 3.85 N of water: a multiplication of 3,600. That figure is (0.30 ÷ 0.005)² and would be the same for a pipe of any height and a liquid of any density. Pascal did not need a lot of water, he needed a thin pipe — and the barrel does not burst because of what is in the pipe, it bursts because of the ratio between the pipe and the lid.
-
References (3)
- How the result on this page was arrived at, and by whom. Stevin had the paradox in 1586, half a century before Pascal, and the paper follows what each of them actually added: A. F. Chalmers, "Qualitative novelty in seventeenth-century science: Hydrostatics from Stevin to Pascal." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 51, 2015, pp. 1-10. DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.01.001
- Stevin's own hydrostatics, where the force on the base was first separated from the weight of the liquid: E. J. Dijksterhuis, "Hydrostatics." In Simon Stevin: Science in the Netherlands around 1600, Springer Netherlands, 1970, pp. 64-69. DOI 10.1007/978-94-010-3207-0_5
- The paradox had a name and a readership long before it had a syllabus. This is the 1869 note it carried in Scientific American: "The Hydrostatic Paradox." Scientific American 21, 1869, p. 249. DOI 10.1038/scientificamerican10161869-249