Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Laboratorio de Electromecanica PDF
Laboratorio de Electromecanica PDF
Kamalu J. Beamer
April 2, 2013
Introduction
Theory
A baseballs flight through the air is only an interesting case if drag forces
are applicable. A baseballs flight through a vacuum follows simple parabolic
motion, as is seen in Figure 3; the red line represents the no drag case. Figure
1 [4] is a free-body diagram of a baseball in flight; velocity is not a force, the
arrow is to indicate the direction of the velocity. In the drag free case, gravity
is the only force affecting the ball, therefore the velocity is constant throughout
the entire flight of the ball. With only gravitational force, the baseball follows
simple parabolic motion. These phenomena are resultant of Newtons Laws [4],
most importantly the Law 1 an object continues in its initial state of rest or
motion with uniform velocity unless it is acted on by an unbalanced, or net
external force. [4].
1
Figure 1: A baseballs precession through the air with an initial velocity, and
two applied forces.
With the introduction of drag force, the dynamical system acts significantly
different. The effect of air resistance is important for ... a high flying baseball
hit deep to the outfield [2]; the air resistance or drag force is opposite the
projectiles velocity. The Prandtl expression for the motion of a particle in a
medium in which there is a resisting force proportional to the speed or two the
square of the speed [2] is as follows.
Fdrag = 21 Cw Av2
In the previous equation Cw is drag coefficient, A is the cross-sectional area
of the object, is the air density, v is the velocity of the object. All values
relative to the lab are given in Table 1 [1]. The final drag force is an additional
force applied to the baseball during its flight. One further modification must
be made to the previous equation before we can apply it to the baseball. We
are also interested in observing a baseballs trajectory at different altitudes, yet
there is no height dependence in the previous equation. To remedy, we equate
= 0 exph/h0 [1] with h as the altitude and h0 (scale height) as a constant
found in Table 1.
Baseball Mass
Baseball Area
Drag Coeff (Cw )
Air Density (0 )
Typical HR Velocity
Scale Height (h0 )
0.145 kg
0.0043 m2
0.35
kg
1.22 m
3
49.0 m
s
7000 m
1
2
h/h0
m dv
,
dt = -mg - 2 Cw Av 0 exp
dx
dt
=v
Evidently, these are the equations of motion converted to the form utilizable by RK4 [1]. The 4th order Runge-Kutta method is a more stable version of the 2nd order Runge-Kutta method which was not applied in this
lab. General Runge-Kutta methods are a form of numerical analysis that
utilize an iterative method for differential equation solution approximation.
Proper Runge-Kutta implementation and function definition can save significant amounts of code, and was therefore imbedded into the developed program.
Other (non-RK4) functions were also defined and can be seen on my course
webpage (www2.hawaii.edu/kjbeamer/) under Lab 9 code.
The RK4 function was used in an iterative process in the code wherein new
values were calculated. At each consecutive step, the old value was set equal
to the newly calculated value so that the systems dynamically evolved, step by
step. The following is the 4th order Runge-Kutta (RK4) formulation.
k1 = dtf(t,y)
k2 = dtf(t+ dt
2 ,y(t)+k1 /2)
k3 = dtf(t+ dt
2 ,y(t)+k2 /2)
k4 = dtf(t+dt,y(t)+k3 )
y(t+dt) = y(t) + 61 (k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4 )
With this RK4 formulation in the form of a function, the correct gravitational force and drag force were inserted into the functions. The program was
used to calculate the trajectory of a baseball in many different atmospheric situations. The only problem is that no error was calculated by the program as
I am unsure how to incorporate error into a seemingly perfectly deterministic
iterative process.
Data/Calculations
The projectile code was converted into an executionable and the range of a hit
vs. initial angle was calculated (data in Table 2) and graphed in Figure 2. As
the drag force is a function of and is further a function of exponential reliance
on height, we expect the zero drag case to produce the largest horzitontal range,
the Denver case to produce the second largest horizontal range (because Denver
sits at a higher altitude), and the NY case to produce the smallest horizontal
range. The data found in Table 2 confirms these predictions.
0 (deg)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
No Drag Dist(m)
211.752
229.993
240.982
244.617
240.949
229.901
211.925
Drag in NY Dist(m)
116.292
120.601
121.765
120.279
116.111
109.371
100.067
Figure 2: Trajectories of baseballs launched with the same total speed, but at
different initial angles. The red, green and blue lines represent trajectories of
increasing drag force.
From Figure 2, it is evident that drag significantly affects the range. In the
no drag case, optimal horizontal distance is associated with an initial launch
angle of 450 , as is theoretically expected. Interestingly, when drag forces are
introduced (in NY and Denver), optimal horizontal distance is associated with
an initial launch angle of 400 . This has to do with the time that the baseballs
are in the air; the longer the duration, the longer the drag force is applied. This
explains why an angle slightly smaller than the theoretical expectation produces
a traversed distance. A baseball launched at a smaller angle will be in the air
for a shorter period, and will be subject to the drag force for a shorter period.
The following figure properly displays the affect that drag forces have on
trajectory. The seven trajectories with the largest x ranges are the baseballs hit
in the ideal, drag free case. The seven trajectories with the smallest x ranges
are of baseballs hit with the same initial conditions as the other seven, except
the addition of a drag force at sea level.
Figure 3: The trajectories of baseballs hit in NY, all with the same initial
velocity. The addition of a drag force can half the horizontal range of the
baseballs path.
Once the projectile programs was able to calculate trajectories while including height dependent drag forces, it was further modified to take head and tail
winds into account. Table 3 contains the data of the simulations at both altitudes, both with a 15 mph tail wind (wind in the same direction as the ball)
and a 15 mph head wind (wind in the opposite direction as the ball). This was
a simple adjustment to the code; being that 15 mph is equivalent to 6.7056 m
s ,
this value was simply added to the initial velocity in the tail wind case, and subtracted from the initial velocity in the head wind case. Simple vector addition
allows us to make this subtle mathematical change.
0 (deg)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Denver-tail(m)
146.498
151.617
152.948
151.034
145.701
137.116
125.519
NY-tail(m)
134.595
138.853
139.694
137.493
132.391
124.395
113.812
Denver-head(m)
103.412
108.119
110.273
109.479
106.186
100.346
92.0708
NY-head(m)
96.9197
101.049
102.520
101.623
98.4401
92.8267
85.1147
Figure 4: A plot of the data in Table 3. For each respective tail or head wind
case, the baseball launched at the higher altitude location covered a greater
range.
Conclusion
References
1. Gorham, Peter. Physics305: Computational Physics. Index. N.p., n.d.
Web. 02 Apr. 2013. <http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/gorham/p305/P305index.html>.
2. Marion, Jerry B., and Stephen T. Thornton. Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1988. Print.
3. Rainville, Earl D., and Phillip Edward Bedient. Elementary Differential
Equations. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Print.
4. The Path and Range of a Baseball. ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation,
n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. <http://library.thinkquest.org/11902/physics/range.html>.