Joseph Montroy

MAE 338: Drag on a Sphere

Lab: Monday 8am

Introduction

The primary objective of the Sphere Drag experiment is to determine whether the
relationship between the drag coefficient and the Reynolds number is relatively the
same for geometrically similar objects and to determine whether the data collected
from these experiments is comparable actual values. The importance of these
experiments can be seen in the research and development field for products that
rely heavily on cost efficiencies that correlate to drag. Although there is a greater
demand for experimental drag data gathered in air or other gaseous fluids,
performing the experiment in a liquid fluid is much more accessible and allows us to
yield results that we can visualize. This very basic experiment is one that can
introduce us to more complex experiments such as air flow in a wind tunnel. The
primary objective of calculating the drag coefficient and Reynolds number was
obtained by measuring velocities of the spheres and plugging the results into the
missing variables.

Background and Theory

Drag force is dependent on object diameter, velocity, fluid density and viscosity.

Drag coefficient is only dependent on the Reynolds number. Experimentally

calculated Reynolds numbers that overlap for different fluids should have similar
drag coefficients.

Experimental Procedures

Properties of the fluid and spheres need to be taken and velocities within the fluids
are all required to solve for the drag coefficient and Reynolds number.

Results/ Discussion

The following tables were developed using Excel and are based off of the
experiments described in the procedures. The calculations were made using Excel
formulas and formulas derived in the lab manuel.

Constants (@20*C) tva= t(4,95%)= 2.77

DensityWat
er= 998.2071 α= 0.15
Pi = 3.141592 N= 5
 6
0.1858
Gravity = 9.81 Pt= 17

Water Glycol Glycerin

S.G. = 0.98 1.113 1.261
978.2429 1111.004
Density = 58 502 1258.739153
Viscosity = 0.001002 0.018 0.624

Diameter Volume(m Density(kg/m

Ball # Mass(kg) (m) ^3) ^3)
4.4892E-
1 0.000508 0.0095 07 1131.603499
2.61107E-
2 0.0029225 0.00793 07 11192.73813
4.2116E-
3 0.0006965 0.0093 07 1653.764482
4.5034E-
4 0.0035217 0.00951 07 7820.097929
2.6012E-
5 0.002033 0.00792 07 7815.616102

Fluid = Water
Distance(m Velocity(
Ball # ) Time(s) m/s) Fd(N) δVel
0.198058 0.0068
1 1.02 5.15 252 0.000675386 97
1.478260 0.3136
2 1.02 0.69 87 0.026163997 34
0.693877 0.0778
3 1.02 1.47 551 0.002790973 68
1.645161 0.3793
4 1.02 0.62 29 0.030226164 66
0.3219
5 1.02 0.68 1.5 0.01744747 22

Fluid = Glycol
Distance(m Velocity(
Ball # ) Time(s) m/s) Fd(N) δVel
0.016649 0.0001
1 0.32 19.22 324 9.07161E-05 59
0.484705 0.0389
2 1.03 2.125 882 0.025823934 76
1.572519 0.3475
3 1.03 0.655 084 0.002242458 2
1.320512 0.2540
4 1.03 0.78 821 0.029639646 58
 1.061855 0.1707
5 1.03 0.97 67 0.017108691 11

Fluid = Glycerine
Distance(m Velocity(
Ball # ) Time(s) m/s) Fd(N) δVel
1000000 -
1 0 00 0 0.000559894 0
0.142068 0.0035
2 1.03 7.25 966 0.025445518 5
0.218683
3 1.03 4.71 652 0.00163208 0.0083
0.259249 0.0115
4 1.03 3.973 937 0.028986979 83
1.061855 0.1707
5 1.03 0.97 67 0.016731705 11
The density of water, glycol, and glycerine were taken using hydrometers. 5
random spheres were selected and their masses and diameters were measured
using a very accurate weight scale and a micrometer. These values were used to
volume=4/3*pi®^3, and density=mass/volume. Velocity=meters/second was
calculated my measuring the distance each sphere dropped by the time it took to
cover that distance. Finally drag force(Fd) was calculated using these variables and
the equation Fd=1/6*pi*Diameter^3*gravity(DensityParticle-DensityFluid). These
variables led to the calculation of the Drag Coefficient and the Reynolds number:

Water
Ball # Re Cd ln(Re) ln(Cd) δRe δCd δCd/Cd
1836.9 0.496 7.515 2.017 63.97 0.03286 0.066172
1 42 606 858 015 063 177 665
11444. 0.495 9.345 2.234 2428. 0.15831 0.319423
2 67 62 279 871 152 272 509
6300.0 0.174 8.748 2.168 706.9 0.03343 0.191615
3 62 469 315 861 984 092 605
15274. 0.321 9.633 2.265 3522. 0.10917 0.339656
4 54 439 942 293 228 883 564
11598. 0.321 9.358 2.236 2489. 0.10367 0.322166
5 33 805 616 297 174 494 828

Glycol
Ball # Re Cd ln(Re) ln(Cd) δRe δCd δCd/Cd
9.7625 8.311 2.278 2.117 0.093 0.15690 0.018879
1 55 289 554 615 48 953 084
237.24 4.006 5.469 1.387 19.07 0.57416 0.143314
2 38 303 088 869 723 244 795
-
902.65 0.024 6.805 3.728 199.4 0.00791 0.329233
3 58 032 341 37 833 215 264
4 775.11 0.430 6.653 - 149.1 0.12779 0.296667
 0.842
56 776 012 17 274 718 667
-
519.07 0.554 6.252 0.589 83.45 0.14294 0.257818
5 96 447 057 78 086 68 869

Glyceri
ne
Ball # Re Cd ln(Re) ln(Cd) δRe δCd δCd/Cd
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.2726 40.55 0.820 3.702 0.056 1.95349 0.048166
2 03 747 926 72 791 424 076
-
4.1025 0.798 1.411 0.225 0.155 0.05731 0.071795
3 17 265 601 31 708 207 763
4.9733 9.647 1.604 2.266 0.222 0.80757 0.083709
4 65 371 097 685 211 668 507
-
16.964 0.478 2.831 0.736 2.727 0.12338 0.257818
5 53 59 125 91 336 942 869
Re(reynolds number)=DensityFluid*Velocity*Diameter/viscosity

Cd(drag coefficient)=Fd/(1/2*DensityFluid*Velocity^2*pi*Diameter^2/4)

Taking the log of both of these allowed us to plot Cd vs Re:

The following plot shows the combined data points of water glycol and glycerine:

Actual values from empirical models of the entire flow region can be seen in the
following graph:

2. An eveluation of each plot individually and a comparision between the three

graphs enables me determine the effectiveness of my expiriments From MAE 338:
Drag on a Sphere lab manuel, the employment of the Buckingham Pi Theorem
proves that Cd depends only on a function involving the Reynolds number variable.
For this to be evident graphically, the values of Cd would need to be similar for
similar values of the reynolds number. In the combined data points graph,
overlapping reynolds numbers occur because of different fluids, and it is evident
that even though the values of the corresponding drag coefficients aren’t exactly
the same, they lie roughly within the variation in the distribution points. The
existence of this clear variation in distribution points is very important to the
practicality of the expirement and will be covered more extensively.
3.The following tables address the uncertainty of the data points:

δRe δCd δCd/Cd

63.970 0.03286 0.066172
63 177 665
2428.1 0.15831 0.319423
52 272 509
706.99 0.03343 0.191615
84 092 605
3522.2 0.10917 0.339656
28 883 564
2489.1 0.10367 0.322166
74 494 828

δRe δCd δCd/Cd

0.0934 0.15690 0.018879
8 953 084
19.077 0.57416 0.143314
23 244 795
199.48 0.00791 0.329233
33 215 264
149.12 0.12779 0.296667
74 718 667
83.450 0.14294 0.257818
86 68 869

δRe δCd δCd/Cd

0 0 0
0.0567 1.95349 0.048166
91 424 076
0.1557 0.05731 0.071795
08 207 763
0.2222 0.80757 0.083709
11 668 507
2.7273 0.12338 0.257818
36 942 869
The uncertainty in the reynolds number and the drag coefficient accounting only for
the uncertainty in the terminal velocity due time time measurement were
calculated in the following way:

Pt(percent uncertainty)= tva*sigma/sqrt(N) where tva is t-statistic taken from a

table in the uncertainty document; sigma=std=.15 seconds (taken from lab
manuel); and N is the number of samples (five).
This Pt value was then added or subtracted from the time variable in the velocity
formula to get a velocity’. Uncertainty in velocity was calculated by taking Ivelocity-
velocity’I.

By repeating this step with respect to velocity instead of time, the uncertainty in
both Cd and Re was calculated.

The following tables and graph including uncertainties resulted:

ln(Re) ln(Cd) ln(Re)- ln(Cd)-

lnδRe lnδCd +ln(δRe) +ln(δCd) ln(δRe) ln(δCd)
- -
4.15842409 3.4154452 11.6742818 1.39843006 3.3574336 5.4324603
1 2 6 2 8 78
-
7.79488561 1.8431829 17.1401650 0.39168840 1.5503937 4.0780542
3 34 2 5 91 74
- -
6.56102837 3.3982740 15.3093430 1.22941292 2.1872863 5.5671350
3 01 6 6 14 76
-
8.16684904 2.2147680 17.8007914 0.05052444 1.4670933 4.4800606
4 84 1 2 2 09
- -
7.81970617 2.2664948 17.1783225 0.03019742 1.5389101 4.5027923
5 81 5 5 99 37

ln(Re) ln(Cd) ln(Re)- ln(Cd)-

lnδRe lnδCd +ln(δRe) +ln(δCd) ln(δRe) ln(δCd)
- - -
2.37001030 1.8520858 0.09145610 0.26552885 3.9697006
4 95 8 5 4.6485645 44
-
2.94849524 0.5548429 8.41758336 0.83302584 2.5205928 1.9427117
9 33 9 2 7 08
- -
5.29573065 4.8393556 12.1010719 8.56772251 1.5096106 1.1109887
4 42 8 3 76 71
-
5.00480114 2.0573108 11.6578132 - 1.6482109 1.2151427
7 42 7 2.89947895 75 33
- -
1.9452827 10.6763153 2.53506744 1.8277992
4.42425801 22 1 4 89 1.355498

ln(Re) ln(Cd) ln(Re)- ln(Cd)-

lnδRe lnδCd +ln(δRe) +ln(δCd) ln(δRe) ln(δCd)
 0 0 0 0 0 0
- -
2.86837428 0.6696196 2.04744845 4.37233968 3.6893001 3.0331003
6 87 9 9 14 15
- - - -
1.85977208 2.8592440 0.44817133 3.08455834 3.2713728 2.6339298
6 85 3 7 39 22
- -
1.50412567 0.2137172 0.09997098 2.05296819 3.1082223 2.4804027
9 65 1 2 4 22
-
1.00332538 2.0924098 3.83445005 - 1.8277992
4 8 8 2.82932176 89 1.355498

From this graph it can be shown that most of the values lie within the uncertainty.

4. Comparing the model that provides the uncertainty bars with the empirical
model, proves that for the most part the Reynolds numbers lay within the
uncertainty of the intermediate regime.

Conclusion

Based on the graphs of Cd vs Re and the uncertainties associated with them I can
determine that the lab experiment is not a very accurate one. There is much room
for human error. Although the graphs were somewhat similar to the empirical one I
was only able to determine the Reynolds number in a specified flow region because
of the experimental limitations.

References

MAE338: Drag on Sphere Lab Manuel; UBLearns.

Uncertainty document; UBLearns.