Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………....……………..……………………1

Review of Literature……………………………………………………………............................3

Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………………...8

Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………………....9

Data and Observations…………………………………………………..…………………….....12

Data Analysis and Interpretation…………………………………………………………..…….18

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….....31

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...34

Appendix A: Prediction Equations….……………………………………...…………………....35

 Pretzer - Schang 1

Introduction

When a package is ordered online, it must go through a lot of shipping routines and

traveling by truck, airplane, freighter, etc. in order to reach its destination. Along the way, the

box may become damaged, dented, or ripped open. In the worse case scenario, the contents

inside the package may become damaged as well as the box. The research conducted here was

based off of similar research done at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, where they

too tested the effectiveness of non-newtonian fluids as means of padding. The research

conducted in this paper dove into an experimental concept where non-newtonian fluids, or shear

thickening fluids, are used to not only protect the contents of the package during shipping, but to

get the package safely to one’s destination.

The problem of this experiment was to determine the significance of mass, viscosity, and

drop height on piercing depth upon Non-Newtonian fluid padding. Under these effects, it would

give a basic idea on the advantages and disadvantages of protecting one’s package under the

simulation of damaging conditions during shipping; such as the blunt force of a concentrated

mass. During the experiment, the goal was to see which combination of the three factors listed

above would yield the greatest and least piercing depth into the solution. This would give a

concrete observation as to which combination of effects would penetrate the most and how to

resolve this outcome, by also observing which pierces the solution the least.

To simulate the damaging effects of shipping a package, different variations of weights

were dropped onto different viscosities of non-newtonian fluid from varying heights. This

general method of carrying out the experiment will support the goal in simulating blunt force on
 Pretzer - Schang 2

a package with a non-newtonian fluid padding. The results from this experiment will support the

goal in telling how each factor affects the overall protection of the package during shipping.
 Pretzer - Schang 3

Review of Literature

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the significance of force applied (mass),

viscosity, and drop height on piercing depth upon Non-Newtonian fluid (Oobleck/STF) padding

and expand on the practical uses of Non-Newtonian fluid. Non-Newtonian fluids, better known

as oobleck or shear thickening fluid, is unique in that when a blunt force is applied to it, it acts as

a solid. Sheer refers to the raw/ pure force applied. Newtonian fluids are easy flowing liquids

with a viscosity that does not change when force is applied unlike non-Newtonian fluids. When

moving slowly through non-newtonian fluids with very little force, it acts as a liquid.

Viscosity is one of the many scientific concepts touched upon by the research conducted.

The viscosity of a liquid relates to how easy a solution/liquid can flow. It is determined by the

molecular makeup of the solution. In this case, the viscosity of non-newtonian fluid is very high

because of its resistance to flow with ease due to the combatting cornstarch molecules causing

‘internal friction’ within the solution.

http://camblab.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/common-viscosities.jpg

Figure 1. Measurements of Viscosity

 Pretzer - Schang 4

The previous Figure shows the scale used to measure relative viscosities in regards to the

resistance to flow. On the far left of the spectrum lies low viscosity liquids such as gasoline,

water and acetone. Having a low viscosity means there is little to no resistance between the

molecules in regards to moving and flowing. On the far right of the spectrum lies high viscosity

liquids such as fondue, toothpaste and ketchup. Having a high viscosity means there is a lot of

resistance between the molecules in the solution in regards to moving and flowing. This is where

non-newtonian fluids lie when exposed to an impact force. When moved slowly however, the

viscosity of the solution decreases, lying further left down the spectrum.

In this experiment, the Non-Newtonian fluid is made from cornstarch and water. In

scientific terms, the fluid identifies as a colloid, or a ​mixture in which one substance of

microscopically dispersed insoluble particles is suspended throughout another substance. There

are two main theories that elaborate on why shear thickening fluid acts the way it does. The first

theory relates to the formation of cornstarch clumps called hydroclusters when overwhelmed by

a sudden impa​ct. These hydroclusters are what makes the non-newtonian fluid harden on impact

with a fo​rce. As stress increases, the hydroclusters contract and the fluid thickens, or becomes

more viscous. Liquid is squeezed out of the clusters, creating an ever-thinner lubricating layer

separating the particles and making the scattered clusters m​ore rigid (Swenson et al.). Whe​n the

absorbed energy from the impact dissipates, the particles begin to disperse throughout the

solution ag​ain (​Wilson). As the hydroclusters fall apart, the solid molecular makeup of the

solution begins to revert back to the makeup of a liquid. Thus, when moving slowly through a

non-newtonian fluid, the particles are not disturbed and do not clump together, maintaining the

molecular makeup of a liquid.

 Pretzer - Schang 5

https://science.howstuffworks.com/liquid-body-armor1.htm

Figure 2. Molecular Makeup of Non-Newtonian Fluids

The Figure above shows the molecular composition of non-newtonian fluids before and

after it is impacted by an outside force. As a force is applied to the fluid, the colloid particles

pack into dense hydroclusters (purple chunks shown right) and cause the fluid to harden and act

as a solid.

The second theory relates to the topic of internal friction among the cornstarch molecules

in the solution (viscosity), as touched upon. The theory explains that when an impact force is

applied, the cornstarch molecules compact very close together, much like the molecular structure

of a solid. When the force is applied repeatedly, the cornstarch molecules rub against one

another, making the solution appear as a solid and increasing its viscosity. This is why the

solution appears thicker in consistency. “A competing model invokes frictional

contacts—essentially, particle collisions caused by stress—as the primary driver of thickening.

But, the friction model requires materials to expand—or dilate—once stress surpasses a

threshold and particles lock into place so that they are unable to squeeze by each other, as in the

hydrodynamic model.” (Swenson et al.)

 Pretzer - Schang 6

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shear-thinning-and-shear-thickening-fluids_fig1_314512528

Figure 3. Shear Rate Vs. Shear Stress

The Figure above shows a graph comparing the behaviors of shear thickening fluid,

newtonian fluid, and shear thinning fluid. The graph shows that initially the shear stress is linear

compared to the shear rate but then the slope starts to get smaller and the line starts to level out.

The opposite is true for the shear thinning fluid and the newtonian fluid always has a linear

relationship.

In comparison to the experiment being performed, a similar experiment was conducted at

the University of Delaware by authors Sarah Trager, Norman Wagner and Buz Swanik. In their

experiment, they were trying to “determine the effectiveness of combining the properties of the

shear thickening fluid with soft padding (closed cell foam) in attenuating impact forces” (Trager

et.al). They performed this by dropping a 13.4 kg weight on a sample of foam padding and shear

thickening fluid from 15.9 cm above the sample. The impact force on the sample was then

recorded instead of the penetration depth in the solution, which was recorded in the experiment.

As a result to their experiment, the shear thickening fluid packet was found to have absorbed
 Pretzer - Schang 7

most of the impact by the weight. This indicates that shear thickening fluid is in fact effective as

padding in regards to attenuating impact forces. This claim supports this experiment in that the

solutions used may vary in shock absorption of the weight, in turn affecting how deep the weight

penetrates into the solution. This experiment is similar to this experiment in that they used

cylindrical weights to apply the impact force and dropped it from a given height.

In review, Non-newtonian fluids such as the mixture of cornstarch and water react

differently than newtonian fluids such as water. When a force is applied to the liquid,

hydroclusters are formed causing the area where the force is applied to react as a solid. Viscosity

of the oobleck has been known to make the surface harden more with less force due to the larger

amount of cornstarch compared to water. With these traits kept in mind, this will give a definite

hypothesis to which effects yield a greater significance amongst the data collected.
 Pretzer - Schang 8

Problem Statement

Problem Statement​:

To determine the significance of mass, viscosity, and drop height on piercing depth upon

Non-Newtonian fluid (Oobleck/STF) padding.

Hypothesis​:

It was believed that low viscosity, low drop height and high mass will yield the greatest piercing

depth into the Non-Newtonian fluid (Oobleck).

Data Measured​:

The independent variables in this experiment were the drop height (.25 m, .5 m and .75

m), mass (200 g, 500 g and 1000 g) and viscosity (700 mL:400 mL, 800 mL:400mL and 900

mL:400 mL) which was measured as a ratio between cornstarch and water respectively. The

dependent variable in this experiment was the penetration depth of the mass in the

Non-Newtonian fluid, which is measured in centimeters. Three 3 Factor D.O.E’s were conducted

to test statistical significance among the data collected. (11 trials in each or 33 trials in total)
 Pretzer - Schang 9

Experimental Design

Materials​:
TI-Nspire CX Calculator Phone/ Camera
Sharpie (3) Plastic containers
(3) Assorted Weights (g) (2) 200 mL Beakers
Meter Stick 1200 mL Tap Water
1600 mL Cornstarch Rope
(3) Metal support pole (3) Pole Clamp
Tape

Procedure​:

Part I: Solution Preparation (Standard)

1. Accurately measure out 800 mL of cornstarch using the beaker

2. Pour the 800 mL of cornstarch into the designated plastic container

3. Accurately measure out 400 mL of water using the measuring cup

4. Pour the beaker of water into the container with the cornstarch

5. Evenly mix the solution until it begins to thicken into a paste like substance

6. Add more water little by little if cornstarch is still visible in the solution

7. Prepare each of the three containers of Non-Newtonian fluid to each of their

specifications (700 mL:400 mL, 800 mL:400 mL and 900 mL:400 mL)

Part II: Experimental Set-up

8. Place each container on a flat/level surface (lab table)

9. Set up the metal poles so it forms a frame above the container

10. Use the clamps to lock the beam above the container in place

11. Tighten a clamp in the middle of the beam above the container. This will be used to hold
the string steady when using the pulley system for the weights

12. Place the string holding the weight through the notch in the clamp above the container
 Pretzer - Schang 10

13. Place the meter stick just above the surface of the solution so that it is perpendicular with
its surface

14. Pull the string of the designated weight using the pulley system and measure the correct
height to which it will be dropped on the oobleck solution

15. Make sure the weight is over the container of solution and is in the upright position when
it is dropped from its designated height

16. Drop the weight into the non-newtonian solution in the upright position

17. Once the weight makes impact with the solution, pull on the string to stop the weight
where it landed

18. Once the solution settles around the weight, pull it out of the solution

19. Making sure not to wipe the solution off the weight, measure how far the weight sank
into the non-newtonian fluid with the meter stick; as indicated by the white stain on the
weight

20. Record the measurement for data collection

21. Repeat steps 12 through 18 until data collection is complete for all trials
 Pretzer - Schang 11

Diagram​:

Figure 4. Experiment Assembly

The Figure above shows the basic setup for the experiment used to collect data regarding

the depth of the weight in the non-newtonian fluid when dropped from a given distance. From

the given set up, the weights will be dropped onto the non-newtonian fluid in each designated

container. Once the force of the weight is applied to the solution, the weight will be pulled out

and the depth of the weight into the solution will be measured by measuring the stain of the fluid

left on the weight by the solution. This data will be collected by conducting three 3 Factor

DOE’s.
 Pretzer - Schang 12

Data and Observations

Throughout the data collection process, many factors were taken into effect when

conducting trials. Many steps were needed to ensure accurate data was collected for each trial,

along with ensuring each sample of Non-Newtonian fluid was staying consistent throughout the

data collection process. When recording the penetration depth of the weight on the solutions, the

three factors of mass, viscosity and drop height were all taken into account and changed out

accordingly to fit the needs of each trial. The data collected for each DOE conducted was

recorded and shown below.

Table 1
Data Collection of Piercing Depth Upon Non-Newtonian Fluids
Trial Variables DOE #1 DOE #2 DOE #3 Average
1 Std 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2
2 (+,+,+) 1.2 2 1.8 1.7
3 (+,+,-) 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6
4 (+,-,+) 2.5 2.5 2 2.3
5 (+,-,-) 3.5 2 1.8 2.4
6 Std 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
7 (-,-,-) 1.4 1.3 1 1.2
8 (-,+,+) 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5
9 (-,-,+) 2 1.2 1.5 1.6
10 (-,+,-) 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4
11 Std 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2
Grand Avg. 1.5

The Table above shows the raw data collected from each of the 3 DOE’s conducted

during the data collection process. When conducting each DOE, each trial was randomized to

ensure the data was significant and to avoid bias. The averages for each type of trial (i.e (+,+,+))
 Pretzer - Schang 13

was calculated and shown in the last column to the left. The +++ refers to the trial variable order

in mass, viscosity and drop height respectively. From the averages for each trial, the grand

average was then calculated from the non standard trials, residing to be 1.5cm. When collecting

the data, it was observed that the variables for (+,+,+), (+,-,-) and (-,-,+) had a larger variability

in relation to each DOE conducted. The observations for each trial were recorded and elaborated

upon below as to why the data may have resulted this way.

Table 2
Pretrial Setup and Data Collection Observations
Date Observations
17-Apr Pre-trials; Solutions were made and research setup was finalized
Conducted the first DOE of three. Data collected with thin elastic string used for the
pulley system. Snapped on impact with the solution during some of the trials regarding
18-Apr
the large mass: (+,+,+) and (+,-,-). Trial (+,-,-) landed on an angle along with the rope
snapping.
Decided to change string so it wouldn’t snap after every trial:(Strong poly cord string).
19-Apr Focused on calculations for the first DOE conducted and preparing the weights with
the new stronger chord.
Non-Newtonian Fluid solutions became moldy and hard after sitting in containers over
the weekend. Solutions needed to be thrown away and new solutions were made in
23-Apr
replacement. The same brand of corn starch was used to make the new samples. No
data collection was conducted.
Data for both DOE two and three were collected with the new solutions made. Data
appeared to be consistent even though the samples were not the original used at the
24-Apr
beginning of research. Trial (+,+,+) for DOE 2 landed on an angle when coming in
contact with the solution.
25-Apr Conducted calculations for each DOE and began data analysis.

The Table above shows the observations made during each day of pre trials and data

collection. In relation to the odd variables recorded in Table 1 above, it was inferred that the data

appeared to be larger than the other two DOE’s because of the chord initially used to stop the

weights on impact. When the chord was switched out and used during DOE’s 2 and 3 however,
 Pretzer - Schang 14

the data appeared to be consistent with one another. Another effect that could have led to varying

data points was the changing of the solutions ⅓ of the way through data collection. Since

viscosity was a factor in the experiment, the creation of new solutions could have had a large

impact on why some data points came out the way they did. Though the same measurements

were used to make the solutions a second time, they could have varied by small amounts in

comparison to the original solutions. During some of the trials, the weight would land on an

angle instead of landing upright. This could have played a role in varying data points, as a

smaller surface area on impact could result in a deeper penetration depth.

Figure 5. Step One of Procedure

The Figure above shows the beginning step to preparing the drop of the weight. The

meterstick was placed perpendicular to the surface of the solution and acts as a measurement to

prepare the drop height of the weight onto the solution.

 Pretzer - Schang 15

Figure 6. Step Two of Procedure

The Figure above shows how the weight was prepared to be dropped on the solution. A

meter stick was held to the surface of the solution and the weight (held up by a pulley system)

was lifted to the specified height and dropped.This trial was the (+,+,+).
 Pretzer - Schang 16

Figure 7. Step Three of Procedure

The Figure above shows the third step of executing a trial. In this step, the rope is

released and the weight is dropped from the designated height measured in step two above. The

weight falls onto the solution and makes an impact, piercing the surface of the solution.
 Pretzer - Schang 17

Figure 8. Step Four of Procedure

The Figure above shows the method of recording penetration depth into the solution. As

the weight made its impact with the solution, it made a dominant white stain on the edge of the

weight. The weight was then pulled out and the length of the white stain on the weight was then

measured with a meter stick. This process was repeated for every trial conducted throughout the

research.
 Pretzer - Schang 18

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The research performed explored the effects of mass, viscosity and drop height on the

penetration depth of non-newtonian fluids (oobleck). Penetration depth was measured in

centimeters, mass was measured in kilograms, drop height was measured in meters and viscosity

was referenced in parts of cornstarch (mL) and water (mL). The independent and dependent

variables used during the experiment were all labeled as quantitative and continuous data. The

appropriate approach for this research was a 3-Factor D.O.E. It was appropriate because one

dependent variable (penetration depth) was being tested on three independent variable (mass,

viscosity and drop height). In order to maintain consistent conditions for the experiment, each

sample of non-newtonian fluid was made with the same brand of cornstarch and was measured

out in uniform measurements. Each sample was made in containers with the same uniform

volume and was stored in a room temperature environment. Each of the 11 data trials were

randomly selected by performing the random integer function on the Ti-Nspire CX calculator

(randint(1,11)). This was conducted to ensure little bias of the data collected. The averages were

calculated from each DOE and graphed to show the interaction effects between two variables

and by itself. 3 Three Factor DOEs were conducted to enact repetition and replication, which

reduces variability in order to recognize outliers. The execution of the three DOEs and the

standards is also used to show how accurate the data is and check to see how consistent the data

collection is in comparison to each DOE ran.

 Pretzer - Schang 19

Table 3
Data Collected (cm)
Trial DOE 1 DOE 2 DOE 3 Average

(+,+,+) 1.2 2 1.8 1.7

(+,+,-) 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6
(+,-,+) 2.5 2.5 2 2.3
(+,-,-) 3.5 2 1.8 2.4
(-,+,+) 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5
(-,+,-) 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4
(-,-,+) 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.6
(-,-,-) 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.2

The Table above shows the 24 trials run (excluding the standards) during the data

collection process. In each trial, the factors were ordered mass, viscosity and drop height

respectively. There was a small variety of values, which could have been caused by inconsistent

mixing of the oobleck before running a trial (as oobleck begins to separate when sitting). Also

shown above are the averages for each type of trial run (the calculated average taken from each

DOE conducted). Not shown above is the grand average of penetration depth, which was

calculated to be 1.5cm (average of the averages).

 Pretzer - Schang 20

Table 4
Effect of Mass
Effect: Mass
(-) Values (+) Values
0.5 1.7
0.4 1.6
1.6 2.3
1.2 2.4
0.925 2
Effect Value 1.075

The Table above shows the averages for the high and low trial values in relation to mass

calculated from each of the three DOE’s conducted. The effect value of mass in the experiment

was found by subtracting the low average from the high average, which was approximately

1.075.
 Pretzer - Schang 21

Figure 7. Effect of Mass

The Figure above shows the effect of mass on the penetration depth on oobleck. The line

segment has a large slope showing the significance of the mass. The two values used to graph the

line segment was taken from the averages found in Table 3 above. It was observed that as mass

increases, the penetration depth increased as well, making this a direct relationship.
 Pretzer - Schang 22

Table 5
Effect of Viscosity
Effect: Viscosity
(-) Values (+) Values
2.3 1.7
2.4 1.6
1.6 0.5
1.2 0.4
1.875 1.05
Effect Value -0.825

The Table above shows all of the averages for the high and low trial values for viscosity

calculated from each of the three DOE’s conducted. The effect value of viscosity in the

experiment was found by subtracting the low average from the high average, which was

approximately -0.825.
 Pretzer - Schang 23

Figure 8. Effect of Viscosity

The previous Figure shows the effect of viscosity on the penetration depth of oobleck.

The line segment has a large slope showing the effect of the viscosity. The significance of the

mass was found by subtracting the low value from the high value which came out to about

-0.825.

Table 6
Effect of Drop Height
Effect: Drop Height
(-) Values (+) Values
1.6 1.7
2.4 2.3
0.4 0.5
1.2 1.6
1.4 1.525
Effect Value 0.125

The Table above shows all of the averages for the high and low trial values for drop height

calculated from each of the three DOE’s conducted. The effect value of drop height in the

experiment was found by subtracting the low average from the high average, which was

approximately 0.125.
 Pretzer - Schang 24

Figure 9. Effect of Drop Height

The Figure above shows the effect of drop height on the penetration depth of oobleck.

The line segment is fairly horizontal showing a low significance amongst the data.

Table 7
Effect of Mass and Viscosity
Viscosity
Mass (-) (+) Slope
Solid Line (+) 2.4 1.7 -0.350
Dashed Line (-) 1.4 0.5 -0.475
Effect 0.125

The Table above shows the interaction effect of mass and viscosity, which was calculated

by first finding the slopes of each line segment by subtracting the (-,-) trial from the (-,+) and

dividing by two for the low mass line segment, and by subtracting the (+,-) trial from the (+,+)
 Pretzer - Schang 25

and dividing by two for the high mass line segment. The slope of the low mass line segment was

then subtracted from the slope of the high mass line segment, which led to an interaction effect

of 0.125.

Figure 10. Interaction Effect Between Mass and Viscosity

The Figure above shows the interaction effect graph for mass and viscosity. Since both of

the line segments have roughly the same slope, this indicates very little interaction between

mass and viscosity throughout the experiment, and thus little significance on the interaction.
 Pretzer - Schang 26

Table 8
Effect of Viscosity and Drop Height
Drop Height
Viscosity (-) (+) Slope
Solid Line (+) 1.0 1.1 0.050
Dashed Line (-) 1.8 2.0 0.075
Effect -0.025

The Table above shows the interaction effect of viscosity and drop height, which was

calculated by first finding the slopes of each line segment by subtracting the (-,-) trial from the

(-,+) and dividing by two for the low variable name line segment, and by subtracting the (+,-)

trial from the (+,+) and dividing by two for the high variable name line segment. The slope of the

low line segment was then subtracted from the slope of the high line segment, which led to an

interaction effect of -0.025.

 Pretzer - Schang 27

Figure 11. Interaction Effect Between Viscosity and Drop Height

The previous Figure shows the interaction effect between viscosity and drop height.

Since both the lines are relatively parallel, this indicates that there was little significance on the

data between the effect values of viscosity and drop height throughout the experiment.

Table 9
Effect of Mass and Drop Height
Drop Height
Mass (-) (+) Slope
Solid Line (+) 2.0 2.0 0.000
Dashed Line (-) 0.8 1.1 0.125
Effect -0.125

The Table above shows the interaction effect of mass and drop height, which was

calculated by first finding the slopes of each line segment by subtracting the (-,-) trial from the

(-,+) and dividing by two for the low variable name line segment, and by subtracting the (+,-)

trial from the (+,+) and dividing by two for the high variable name line segment. The slope of the

low line segment was then subtracted from the slope of the high line segment, which led to an

interaction effect of -0.125.

 Pretzer - Schang 28

Figure 12. Interaction Effect Between Mass and Drop Height

The Figure above shows the interaction effect between mass and drop height. Since both

the lines are relatively parallel, this indicates that there was little significance on the data

between the effect values. The effect value came out to be very small, residing at -0.125.

Table 10
Table of Standards
Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R.O.S.
Penetration
Depth (cm) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.2

The Table above shows the data collected from running the standards. The range of

standards (R.O.S.) was calculated by subtracting the smallest standard from the largest standard.

It was found to be quite small, residing at 0.2cm.

 Pretzer - Schang 29

Figure 13. Graph of Standards

The Figure above shows the nine standards recorded throughout the three DOE’s

conducted. As seen above, the standards are very close together showing a consistent method of

data collection. From this data, the range of standards was calculated to be -0.2 to 0.2.
 Pretzer - Schang 30

Figure 14. Dot Plot of Effects

The Figure above shows the dot plot of effects in relation to the research conducted. As

shown above, the factors of viscosity and mass were deemed to be significant, as both the points

fell outside the fences placed at -0.4 and 0.4 (two times the range of standards). The factors of

mass and drop height, viscosity and drop height, drop height and mass and viscosity all fell

within the fences, indicating little effect on the outcome of the data (deemed insignificant).

The Appendix A shows the Parsimonious Prediction Equation fitted for our experiment.

The two greatest effect values, mass and viscosity, were used out of the three values. The value

of ‘Y’ is found by taking the sum of the grand average and both effect values ‘M’ and ‘V’ over

two plus noise. If the high trials were to be run in regards to this experiment, the value would

calculate to be 1.625. Appendix A also shows the prediction equation that could be used to

calculate expected value if the experiment was conducted again. This includes all effect values

even if the effects are not significant. If all high trials were to be run, the prediction value would

calculate to be 1.6125.
 Pretzer - Schang 31

Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the significance of mass, viscosity, and

drop height on piercing depth upon Non-Newtonian fluid (Oobleck/STF) padding to determine

which effects would yield the greatest penetration depth. A three factor design of experiment was

conducted in order to determine the effects and what conditions were statistically significant.

Each weight was hung from the metal support rods and the distance from the bottom of the

weight to the surface of the oobleck was measured. The weights would then be dropped and once

the weight made contact with the oobleck, the string would be pulled and tied to keep the weight

at the same depth to measure penetration. The oobleck would leave a distinct white stain on the

weight which would then be used to measure the penetration depth.

It was believed that low viscosity, low drop height and high mass will yield the greatest piercing

depth into the Non-Newtonian fluid (Oobleck). In the end, the hypothesis was accepted. When

observing the penetration depth of the weights, it was recorded that the mass and viscosity had

the greatest effect on the data collected, as shown by the dot plot of effects shown in Figure 10.

Viscosity yielded an overall effect value of -0.825 and mass yielded an overall effect value of

1.075. Both values fell outside the fences placed at -0.6 and 0.6. The trial of (+,-,-) yielded the

deepest piercing depth while the trial of (-,+,-) yielded the lowest piercing depth.

Non-Newtonian Fluids act as a liquid when left alone, and act as a solid when acted upon by a

force. This is because the molecular makeup of oobleck, consisting of cornstarch and water,

created a colloid that caused the solution to harden on impact. It was observed that the greater the

force exerted on the oobleck, the more the solution would harden. The hypothesis was accepted,

as a mass with larger surface area being dropped from a lower height into a solution with a lower
 Pretzer - Schang 32

viscosity yielded the greatest piercing depth. This is because the mass had less time to pick up

speed as it was falling toward the solution. A lower velocity at which the weight was falling

resulted in a greater piercing depth because the molecules were exposed to a smaller force being

exerted.

In relation to other work currently being done in the field, the data collected in this experiment

agrees with their findings. The research conducted showed that non-newtonian fluids with a

lower viscosity, lower drop height and a greater mass result in the greatest penetration depth. In

contrast, the non-newtonian fluid with a greater viscosity, greater drop height and a greater mass

yielded a smaller penetration depth. These findings related to the work done by the Royal

Institute of Technology in Sweden, named “Usage of Oobleck as a Packaging Material”

conducted by Hari Narayanan Soundararajan, Eidur Agustsson, René Alexander Díaz Martinez,

Andreas Westergren and José Luis González-Conde Pérez, where they found oobleck to be the

most effective protective padding for eggs when being dropped from set heights (​Soundararajan)​.

Weaknesses and sources of error during the experiment occurred with the pulley mechanism of

the weights during the first DOE conducted. The string initially used to hold the weight

continued to snap after each trial conducted, resulting in varying data points.Another error

experienced during data collection was the Non-Newtonian Fluids becoming moldy after sitting

for long periods of time (over a period of 4 days). As a result, new solutions needed to be

prepared for the next two DOE’s conducted.

Potential research could be conducted in the future by further experimenting with the

effectiveness of Non-Newtonian Fluids as protective padding. Research could be expanded

outward from just packaging material and explore different health related fields such as creating
 Pretzer - Schang 33

protective body armor, helmets, and perhaps safety precautions used in cars to absorb the impact

of head on collisions. This advancement in research could potentially enhance people’s

knowledge on how protective padding functions in relation to stronger and weaker forces.
 Pretzer - Schang 34

Works Cited

Trager et al. “Shear Thickening Fluid Based Protective Foam Padding.” ​Research Gate​, 17 Feb.

2017

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268009973_SHEAR_THICKENING_FLUID_BASED

_PROTECTIVE_FOAM_PADDING

Soundararajan, Hari Narayanan, et al. “Usage of Oobleck as a Packaging Material.” ​Usage of

Oobleck as a Packaging Material​, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,

3 Mar. 2013

www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0313/ijsrp-p1594.pdf.

Swenson, Gayle, et al. “A Crack in the Mystery of 'Oobleck'-Friction Thickens Fluids.” ​National

Institute of Standards and Technology,​ 8 Jan. 2018

www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2016/05/crack-mystery-oobleck-friction-thickens-fluids.

Wilson, Tracy V. “How Liquid Body Armor Works.” ​HowStuffWorks Science​, HowStuffWorks,

8 Mar. 2018

https://science.howstuffworks.com/liquid-body-armor1.htm​.
 Pretzer - Schang 35

Appendix A: Prediction Equations

Prediction Equation Formula:

*There is as many effect values as there are statistically significant effect values and

interaction effect values. The effect values not deemed significant aren’t included.

Parsimonious Prediction Equation Formula:

Y = 1.5 + ( 1.075 −0.825

2 )M + ( 2 )V + "noise" = 1.625

Parsimonious Prediction Equation:

Y = 1.5 + ( 1.075 −0.825

2 )M + ( 2 )V + "noise"

Prediction Equation: