You are on page 1of 11

# 1.

0 TITTLE
Impact of a Jet
2.0 OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate and verify the integral momentum equation. The force
generated by a jet of water deflected by an impact surface is measured and compared to the change of the
jet.
3.0 EQUIPMENT
The following equipment is required for the experiment:
3.1 impact of a Jet Apparatus
3.2 Steady water supply with a flow control valve
3.3 Flow meter
3.4 A flat plate and a hemispherical cup
3.5 Set of calibrated weight

4.0 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 shows the arrangement, in which water supplied from the Hydraulic Bench is fed to a vertical
pipe terminating in a tapered nozzle. This produces a jet of water which impinges on a vane, in the form a
flat plate or a hemispherical cup.
The nozzle an vane are contained within a transparent cylinder, and at the base of the cylinder there is an
outlet from which the flow is directed to the measuring tank of the bench. As indicated in Figure 1, the
vane is supported by a lever which carries a weight pan, and which is restrained by alight spring. The
lever may be set to a balanced position (as indicated by a tally supported from it) by placing the weight
pan at its zero position, and then adjusting the knurled nut above the spring. Any force generated by
impact of the jet on the vane may now be measured by moving the weight pan along the lever until the
tally shows that it has been restored to its original balanced position.

5.0 IMPACT OF A JET THEORY
A theoretical model for the force necessary to hold the impact surface stationary is obtained by applying
the integral forms of the continuity and momentum equations. The details of the model depend on
whether, or not the fluid stream leaving the impact surface is symmetric relative to the vertical axis of the
surface.
The control volume, bounded by the dashed lines, is chosen so that it crosses the jet streams at right
angles. To proceed with the analysis make the following assumptions:
Friction between the impact surface and the water jet is negligible
The magnitude of the jet velocity does not change as the jet is turned
Velocity profiles are uniform where the floe crosses the control surface
The jet exit is circumferentially symmetrical
If any of the impact surfaces used in the experiment cause the flows that violate these assumptions, the
formula for reaction forces given below will not match the measured reaction forces.
Applying the conservation of mass to the jet streams gives
- V2 A2 = 0
where V is the average velocity at a given cross-section, and A is the cross-sectional area normal to the
direction of the average velocity. The subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the inlet and outlet of the control volume,
respectively. Since the magnitude of the velocity is assumed to not change, Equation (1) simplifies to
2= A
The integral equation for momentum conservation in the x-direction is
( )
Rh = ()
Where Rh is the reaction force in the x-direction necessary to hold the impact surface stationary, and is
the angle between the horizontal and the velocity vector of the fluid leaving the control volume.
Equation (4) shows that Fh = 0 if the flow leaving the impact surface is symmetric about the vertical axis
of the impact surface. If there is any disruption to the symmetry, e.g., variation in or around the
periphery of the exit, Rh will not be zero.

Figure 2 : Nomenclature for control volume analysis of the jet. Ideally, the
Apparatus and jet are symmetric about the center lining of the jet.

Applying the y-direction integral momentum equation gives

)
-

(-

+ (-

Where

## is the reaction force in the y-direction. Using the simplification 2 = A and 2 = V,

Equation (6) reduces to

= ( )

Where =

6.0 PROCEDURE

6.1 The flat plate in the apparatus was installed
6.2 Note the no load position of the weight tray by aligning the pointer on top of the
apparatus to the weight pan.
6.3 The appropriate masses added to the way tray until it returns to the no load position
6.4 The flow rate and masses were recorded
6.5 The water supply was reduced and the procedure (steps 4-5) were repeated for each flow
rate
6.6 The flat plate was replaced with an hemispherical cup and the procedure was repeated

7.0 RESULTS
Fluid Dynamics (Impact Jet) Data Sheet
Apparatus design geometry:
Diameter of the nozzle: 5mm
Cross sectional area of nozzle:

=
()

= 1.963495

Height impact above nozzle tips: 3.5 cm
Experiment results:

7.1 Plate

For mass, m = 800g, time, t = 26.12s,
Q = 0.005 / 26.12 = 1/5224

/s
V = Q / A =

= 9.749156 m/s

= mg = (0.8-0.75)(9.81) = 0.4905 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/5224)(9.749156) = 1.8662 N

For mass, m = 850g, time, t = 22.62,
Q = 0.005 / 22.62 = 1/4524

/s
V = Q / A =

= 11.25765 m/s

= mg = (0.85-0.75)(9.81) = 0.981 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/4524)( 11.25765) = 2.4888 N

For mass, m = 900g, time, t = 20.02s,
Q = 0.005 / 20.03 = 1/4006

/s
V = Q / A =

= 12.71333 m/s

= mg = (0.9-0.75)(9.81) = 1.4715 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/4006)( 12.71333) = 3.1736 N

For mass, m = 950g, time, t = 18.31,
Q = 0.005 / 18.31 = 1/3662

/s
V = Q / A =

= 13.9076 m/s

= mg = (0.95-0.75)(9.81) = 1.962 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/3662)( 13.9076) = 3.7978 N

For mass, m = 1000g, time, t = 17.96s
Q = 0.005 / 17.96 = 1/3592

/s
V = Q / A =

= 14.17862 m/s

= mg = (1.00-0.75)(9.81) = 2.4525 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/3592)( 14.17862) = 3.9473 N

Case Mass (g) Time (s) Q (m/s) V(m/s)

## (N) Rv = (N) Comment (Diff)

1 800 26.12

99.7492 0.4905 1.8622 1.3757
(smallest)
2 850 22.62

11.2577 0.9810 2.4888 1.5078
3 900 20.03

12.7133 1.4715 3.1736 1.7021
4 950 18.31

13.9076 1.9620 3.7978 1.8358
(largest)
5 1000 17.96

14.1786 2.4525 3.9473 1.4948

7.2 Hemisphere

For mass, m = 800g, time, t = 34.81s,
Q = 0.005 / 34.81 = 1/6962

/s
V = Q / A =

= 7.31537 m/s

= mg = (0.8-0.75)(9.81) = 0.4905 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/6962)( 7.31537) = 1.0508N

For mass, m = 900g, time, t = 26.75s,
Q = 0.005 / 26.75 = 1/5350

/s
V = Q / A =

= 9.51955 m/s

= mg = (0.9-0.75)(9.81) = 1.4715 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/5350)( 9.51955) = 1.7794 N

For mass, m = 1000g, time, t = 23.80s,
Q = 0.005 / 23.80 = 1/4760

/s
V = Q / A =

= 10.69949 m/s

= mg = (1.00-0.75)(9.81) = 2.4525 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/4760)( 10.69949) = 2.2478 N

For mass, m = 1100g, time, t = 22.50s,
Q = 0.005 / 22.50 = 1/4500

/s
V = Q / A =

= 11.31769 m/s

= mg = (1.10-0.75)(9.81) = 3.4335 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/4500)( 11.31769) = 2.5150N

For mass, m = 1200g, time, t = 19.39s,
Q = 0.005 / 19.39 = 1/3878

/s
V = Q / A =

= 13.13295 m/s

= mg = (1.20-0.75)(9.81) = 4.4145 N

## =QV = (1000)(1/3878)( 13.13295) = 3.3865 N

Case Mass (g) Time (s) Q (

/s) V (m/s)

## (N) Rv = (N)) Comment

(Difference)
1 800 34.81

7.3154 0.4905 1.0508 0.5603
2 900 26.75

9.5196 1.4715 1.7794 0.3079
3 1000 23.80

10.6995 2.4525 2.2478 -0.2047
(smallest)
4 1100 22.50

11.3177 3.4335 2.5150 -0.9185
5 1200 19.39

13.1330 4.4145 3.3865 -1.028
(largest)

8.0 ANALYSIS

8.1 For each setting of the control volume
8.1.1 The flow rate converted to average velocity for the jet and tabulated in table in
Results part.
8.1.2 The theoretical reaction force

## given V was computed from the flow rate

measurement as shown in the Results part.
8.1.3

## was computed from the applied weight as shown in Results part.

8.2 On the same axes,

and

## versus V plotted for each impact surface.

This graph shows that the

is linear proportional to V.

## is also linear proportional to V except for

when V = 14.1786m/s, the

is decreased a bit.
This also show that the experimental force and theoretical force has significant difference between them
for plate surface. Both

and

increases with V.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
9.7492 11.2577 12.7133 13.9076 14.1786
F
v

a
n
d

R
v

(
N
)

Average Velocity (m/s)
Rv and Fv versus V for plate surface
Fv (N)
Rv (N)

This graph show that

## do not have linear relationship with V.

Both

and

increase when V increase. For hemisphere surfaces, the theoretical force and experimental
force is less difference if compare to plate surfaces.

8.3 The discrepancy

versus V plotted.
8.3.1 For plate surface

V (m/s)
1.3757 9.7492
1.5078 11.2577
1.7021 12.7133
1.8358 13.9076
1.4948 14.1786

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
7.3154 9.5196 10.6995 11.3177 13.133
F
v

a
n
d

R
v

(
N
)

Average Velocity (m/s)
Rv and Fv versus V for hemisphere surface
Rv (N)
Fv (N)

This graph show that the Discrepancy between

and

## versus V for plate surface. The discrepancy

increases until it reaches V = 13.9017m/s and decreases lastly.

8.3.2 For hemisphere surface

V (m/s)
0.5603 7.3154
0.3079 9.5196
0.2047 10.6995
0.9185 11.3177
1.028 13.1330
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
9.7492 11.2577 12.7133 13.9076 14.1786
R
v

-

F
v

(
N
)

Average Velocity (m/s)
Discrepancy Rv - Fv versus V for
plate surface
Rv-Fv

This graph shows the discrepancy between

and

## versus V for hemisphere surface. The discrepancy

has a dramatically increase when reached V = 11.3177m/s.

9.0 REPORT

9.1 When velocity is high, the flow rate of the water will getting higher, hence the reaction
forces will also increase. This trend is consistent with the theory.
From the equation V = Q/A, Hence, V and Q have linear relationship. Also,

= QV,

also linear proportional to Q, Hence, the trends in the reaction forces versus jet
velocity will form a linear graph because V Q Rv. This relation can be seen clearly
from the four plots accompanied with this report. This result was already predicted from
the change in momentum equation of calculating the force.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
7.3154 9.5196 10.6995 11.3177 13.133
R
v

-

F
v

(
N
)

Average Velocity (m/s)
Discrepancy Rv - Fv versus V for
hemisphere surface
Rv-Fv
9.2 The theoretical model does not predict the measured force for the plate and hemispherical
surface well. It is because there are significant large difference between the measured
forces and theoretical forces. The density of air was not measured causing there is
discrepancy between experimental and theoretical results in both surfaces cases. The
error arose in the experimental velocity because of the area measurements taken from the
nozzle as well as the air flow rates measured from the experimental apparatus.

9.3 Yes, measured values point to differences between the assumptions and actual flow
conditions. We assume that the surfaces are smooth and very small friction exists, but in
the actual flow conditions, there is friction between the water and the nozzle and the
surfaces. Negligible variation in elevation of the incoming and outgoing jets. Uniform
distribution of velocity throughout. But in actual flow conditions, not all the surfaces get
the uniform distribution of velocity because the water tap is closed during the
experiments.

10.0 PRECAUTIONS

10.1 Apparatus should be in leveled condition.
10.3 Discharge must be varied very gradually from a higher to smaller value.

11.0 CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the theoretical force is correlated with the measured force. Both of the forces will have
directly proportional relation. The flow rate for the hemisphere is found to be the lowest and thus require
a longer time for the volumetric tank to rise 5 liters. Theoretically, the theoretical force should be the
same as the measured for, but this cannot be achieved experimentally due to the errors made during
conduct this experiment, such as parallax error due to human and servicing factors. This error occur
during observer captured the value of the water level. Besides, error had occurred during adjusting the
level gauge to point at the white line on the side of the weight pan and also maybe because of the water
valve. The water valve was not completely close during collecting the water and may affect the time taken
for the water to be collected.
Hence, recommendation to overcome the errors is to ensure that the position of the observers eyes must
be 90 perpendicular to the position.

12.0 REFERENCES

YUNUS A. CENGEL, JOHN M. CIMBALA (2010), Fluid Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications
(Second Edition in SI Units), Mc Graw Hill.

BRUCE R. MUNSON, DONALD F. YOUNG (2009), Fundamental of Fluid Mechanics (Sixth Edition),
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.