MECH 2600 
FLUID MECHANICS 

LABORATORY ASSSIGNMENT: 

EXPERIMENT ONE: FORCE ON A SUBMERGED BODY 

Aim: 
The main aim of this experiment was to find the magnitude of the force F subjected to the vertical
surface of the float and also to calculate the point on the vertical surface at which the force acts in
relation to the liquid’s surface.
Apparatus:
Method:
For this experiment, the apparatus was set up in the manner shown above with a float and counterweight suspended on a pivot. The tank was filled up until the water line reached the top of the vertical surface of the float. At this point, due to force of the water on the vertical wall of the float, the system tilted around the pivot and the counterweight dropped. The next step was to take some measurements of the apparatus. This included the area, A, of the vertical surface of the float (bd), the depth of the centre of area (y) (d/2), the distance of the bar to which the float was connected to the water’s surface (q) and the distance from the pivot to the position where further weight will be added. After this, weights were added to the end of the bar on the same side of the pivot as the float in increments of 0.05kg until the float and counterweight began to even out and balance on the pivot when smaller weights were then added. When the float and counterweight were balanced in equilibrium over the pivot, no more weights were added. A record of the added weight was then taken.
Results:
(a) Calculate the magnitude of the force F acting on the vertical surface. b = 0.075m Thus:
d = 0.1m
A = 7.5 x 10 ^{}^{3} m ^{2} y = 50 x 10 ^{}^{3} m ρ = 1000kgm ^{}^{3} g = 9.81N
q = 0.1m
(
)
(
(
)
)
(b) Using the apparatus provided, experimentally determine y’.
(
)
(
)
(Ignore minus sign for distances)
(c) Calculate the theoretical value of y’ and compare to (b).
As shown above, the theoretical value of y’ is 0.0667m whereas the experimentally determined value of y’ is 0.0832m.The percentage error for this is 19.8%.
Analysis:
Firstly, I was asked to find the force acting on the vertical surface which caused the float to move upwards in rotation to the pivot. This happened because the forces from the water on the curved surface of the float act directly in line with the pivot and thus has no affect on the movement of the float. Therefore only the force on the vertical surface is the only influential force and needed to be found. To find y’ the equation, ( ), was used by the method of pivots and moments. The values of mg are the weights added to the float’s bar; the x value is simply the distance from the pivot to the weights; F was calculated in part (a) and q is the distance from the pivot to the water’s surface. By rearranging the equation to make y’ the subject, we can work out its experimental value. The possible reasons for the percentage difference between the experimentally determined value for y’ and the theoretical value include “parallax error”, which concerns the user taking readings of the water level, and specifically the level of meniscus in terms of eye level, accurately and precisely; and also random error, which is the inaccurate yet unavoidable error caused by the
apparatus available. For example, the rulers were only accurate to 1mm which leaves a margin of + 0.5mm for error when measuring distances.
Conclusion:
I think that the aim set out for this experiment was achieved and the further calculations made
therefore proved that bearing in mind the percentage differences although they were small, the measurements were accurate enough to prove that the theory is relevant.
EXPERIMENT TWO: CONSERVATION OF MASS AND ENERGY
Aim:
The aim of this experiment was to use strategically positioned manometers along a tapered venturi shaped nozzle which opens up again to calculate the velocity and mass flow rate of the liquid at certain points in the tube.
Apparatus:
The apparatus consists of a wide tube containing water that runs into a tapered venturi nozzle in a
smaller diameter tube then back to a wide tube again. At certain intervals along this tube are much smaller vertical single limb manometer tubes that are required to measure the pressure at those points. Alongside these manometer tubes are measuring lines marked by numbers to record height of the water levels in them.
Method:
From the apparatus shown above, water was pumped through the tubes at an unknown speed. The cross sectional areas of the tubes were then recorded. Using these values and Bernoulli’s Equation, ̇
velocities at points 1 and 2 were calculated. Then the mass flow rate at the throat
was calculated
firstly using the equation for the conservation of mass and then by measurement (for example time for 10litres to flow through). Finally, the velocity at the throat of the venturi nozzle, u _{2} , was
calculated using only the pitot tubes and the equation total pressure. Density ρ = 1000kg/m ^{3}
Results:
a) Determine the velocities at positions 1 and 2 by using Bernoulli’s Equation.
Bernoulli’s Equation: 
p _{1} + 
ρ u _{1} 2 = p _{2} + 
ρ u _{2} 2 
p _{1} – p _{2} = ρ u _{2} 2 – 
ρ u _{1} 2 

[p _{1} – p _{2} = ρ g Δh] 

[Δh 
h _{1} – h _{5} ] 

Conservation of mass: 
ρ u _{1} A _{1} = ρ u _{2} A _{2} 
A _{1}_{,}_{2} = π(d/2) ^{2}
u 1 = u 2 A 2 / A 1
where, d _{1} = 25mm and d _{2} = 10mm
A _{1} = 4.9 x 10 ^{}^{4} m ^{2} A _{2} = 7.85 x 10 ^{}^{5} m ^{2} 

h _{1} (mm) 
h _{5} (mm) 
Difference 

240 
110 
130 

Δh = 0.132m 

250 
110 
140 

245 
120 
125 

395 

Δh = 131.67mm 

ρ g Δh 
ρ u _{2} 2 – 
ρ (u _{2} A _{2} / A _{1} ) 2 

1000 x 9.81 x 0.132 = 
x 1000 x u _{2} 2 – 
x 1000 x (u _{2} x 7.85x10 ^{}^{5} / 4.9x10 ^{}^{4} ) ^{2} 
1294.92 = u _{2} 2 x (487.17) u _{2} 2 = 2.658
u _{2} = 
1.63m/s 
u _{1} = (u _{2} A _{2} / A _{1} ) 

u _{1} = 
0.26m/s 
b) Calculate the mass flow rate
̇ of the flow at the throat. ̇
ρ u _{2} A _{2} =
Use equation for the Conservation of Mass:
1000 x 1.63 x (7.85x10 5 ) = ̇ = 0.128kgs 1
̇
From this calculation one has to question the accuracy of Bernoulli’s Equation at this point. Any
errors in calculating the velocity previously will be carried forwards and possibly exponentially increasing the errors further on. The assumptions made include that the flow is ideal, incompressible and ideal.
c) Determine the mass flow rate,
̇ , by measurement (1000litres = 1m ^{3} ).
Flow rate:
This is the time it took for 10 litres of water to flow through the apparatus.
Flow rate = 17.84s This was measured using a small marked tube which filled up according to how much water was being pumped through the apparatus. The time for the water to pass between 0 and 10 litres was measured and this came to 17.84s.
10 litres ÷ 1000 = 0.01m 3 0.01m 3 over 17.84 seconds = 5.61x10 4 m 3 /s ̇ = 0.561kg/s
This value for mass flow rate by measurement is very different to that of the theoretical result. By percentage difference, it is a 338.3% difference. This is most likely as a result of systematic and random error in reading the measurements accurately and the manual use of the stopwatch to time it. Also, at some points when the plug was put in the tank to allow the over flow of water fill up the measuring tube that told us how many litres were flowing, the water level would initially fluctuate and jump up and down making it difficult to differentiate when it actually passed 0litres and the user could start timing on the stopwatch. It was also very difficult to read off the monometer the exact location of the meniscus as it moved up and down the tube quickly. Not only this but there were two meniscus readings to take at the same time, meaning that two users were needed to read them and this could result in inconsistent readings between them.
d) Determine the velocity at the throat, u _{2} , using the pitot tube. Δh
p _{1} – p _{2} = 
ρ u _{2} 2 

dynamic pressure 

[p _{1} – p _{2} = ρ g Δh] 

[Δh h _{8} – h _{5} ] 

h _{1} (mm) 
h _{5} (mm) 
Difference 

m 

290 
120 
170 

285 
120 
165 

290 
120 
170 

505 

Δh = 168.3mm 
1000 x 9.81 x 0.168 = 500 x u _{2} 2
u _{2} = √ 

u _{2} = 1.816ms 1
Having compared the two values calculated for the velocity u _{2} , the percentage difference shows to be 10.8% difference between them. Therefore, since these values are relatively close together having been found by different means – the application of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy and the use of the pitot tube – it is safe to say that both techniques are accurate and reliable.
e) Explain what happens when you move the pitot tube beyond point 2 towards the exit?
Towards the exit of the tube it starts to open up and widen. This causes turbulence and eddies in the water. An eddy is a swirling of fluid and a reverse current is created as the tube opens up. In terms of
the conservation of energy, the average velocity stays the same, yet turbulence causes the waste and dissipation of energy within the system. Pressure will also decrease.
Conclusion:
As it was set out to achieve, the velocity and mass flow rate of the liquid through the tapered venturi tube was calculated and compared when different methods and techniques were adopted giving a reliable value for the velocity of the liquid yet due to the huge difference in mass flow rate between the different methods of calculation, it is difficult to state an accurate mass flow rate value from these results.
EXPERIMENT 3: CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM
Aim:
The aim is to vary the flow rate of water out of a known diameter jet nozzle onto targets of various
shapes and use the application of momentum equation to compare which shape target produces the maximum force exerted on the plate.
Apparatus:
The experiment is set up in the manner shown below which a nozzle for shooting a jet of water at a
target plate – flat or curved in our case – connected to a spring weight pan for measuring the force of the water.
Method:
This experiment consisted generally of measuring the impact of jets of water and their subsequent deflection on targets of various shapes. A vertical jet of water was aimed at a target. The vertical force exerted on the target by the water was measured by placing weights on the pan until the force of the jet matched the downward weight. This was done by zeroing the weights pan to be in line with the level gauge with no water jet and no weights. Then once weights were added, the force of the jet was increased until the pan lined up with the level gauge. To measure the flow rate of water from the nozzle, the time for 5litres of water to flow out was recorded. Since the force on the plate was countered by the weight on the pan, this equation was used:
Looking at Newton’s 3 ^{r}^{d} Law, the force applied to the fluid is equal to the rate of change of momentum in the vertical direction:
̇u _{2} 
̇u _{1} = ρQ(u _{2} – u _{1} )
Where u _{1} and u _{2} are the velocities before and after impact, ρ is the water density (1000kgm ^{}^{3} ) and Q is the volumetric flow rate.
By the use of Newton’s 2 ^{n}^{d} Law, the equation for the force exerted on the plate is given by:
Results:
̇u _{1} 
̇u _{2} = ρQ (u _{2} – u _{1} )
= ρQ (u _{1} – u _{1} cosθ)
= ρQ (1 – cosθ) 

And Q = Au _{1} 

( 
) 
a) For a particular target, plot the force on the plate on the yaxis and the quantity on the xaxis. Measure the gradient of this and compare it to the theoretical value (1cosθ) for your particular target at θ = 90° and θ = 180°.
Force on plate F = mg A = π x r ^{2}
A = 5.0265x10 ^{}^{5} m ^{2}
Flat Plate  90° 

Force – mg (g) 
Flow rate – (litres/s) 

0.49 
0.17 
0.575 
0.98 
0.23 
1.052 
1.47 
0.29 
1.673 
1.96 
0.34 
2.2998 
2.45 
0.39 
3.026 
2.94 
0.4 
3.183 
This first set of data corresponds to the flat plate where the water was turned 90 ^{o} . The force on the plate was equal to mass x gravity as previously stated and for each force, a flow rate was calculated
for the water jet in litres/s. Lastly, the quantity was found using the equation as stated in the
question where ρ = 1000kg/m ^{3} and the area being 5.0265x10 ^{}^{5} m ^{2} . Using this data, the above graph was plotted and the gradient was measured to give 0.8694. Comparison between this and the theoretical as follows:
Calculated gradient value = 0.8694
For θ = 90 ^{o} , 
Theoretical gradient = (1 – cosθ) = (1 – cos90) = 1 
Compare: 
1 – 0.8694 = 0.1306 
This slight error difference will be due to systematic and random error that cannot be avoided. Common examples of systematic errors include faulty calibration of measuring instruments, poorly maintained instruments or faulty reading of instruments by the user. This last type is commonly known as “parallax error” which is the user reads the instrument at an angle resulting in reading data that is consistently high or consistently low. To correct this error, the measurement method or technique must be refined. Random errors affect the precision of the measurements. Measurements subject to random error differ from one another due to unpredictable variations in the readings and measurement process. The precision of measurements can be increased if number of readings in increased also. An example of this in this particular experiment is when starting and stopping the stopwatch there needs to be some degree of a quick reaction and the human being can only react at a certain speed leaving some margin for error. This will cause a variation in readings and some margin for error.
Curved Plate:
Curved Plate  180° 

Force – mg (g) 
Flow rate – (litres/s) 

0.49 
0.125 
0.311 
0.98 
0.17 
0.575 
1.47 
0.19 
0.718 
1.96 
0.24 
1.146 
2.45 
0.26 
1.345 
2.94 
0.29 
1.673 
This second set of data relates to the curved plate through which the water was turned 180 ^{o} . These values were calculated in the same way as previously finding the flow rate, force on the plate and quantity for the curved plate apparatus. As a result, the above graph was plotted and from this, the gradient was found. The comparison of the two gradients is as follows:
Calculated gradient value = 1.7819
For θ = 180 ^{o} , 
Theoretical gradient = (1 – cosθ) = (1 – cos180) = 2 
Compare: 
2 – 1.7819 = 0.2181 
As you can see there is also some percentage error between the measured gradient and the theoretical gradient again due to systematic and random error. This includes parallax error in
reading the water level in the thin volume meter tube and also the user’s reactions at starting and
stopping the stopwatch which could results in some readings showing higher than normal and some showing lower than normal.
b) Determine which angle of θ gives the maximum force exerted on the plate.
The plate of angle 180 ^{o} gives the maximum force exerted on the plate because the gradient calculated from the measurements and the graph is higher than that of the plate of angle 90 ^{o} . Since the gradient is higher and the curve on the graph is steeper for the curved plate than the flat plate, the force exerted is higher at a specific value of the quantity.
Conclusion:
As a result of the data collected for this experiment and the calculations made using it, I feel that the
aim set out was achieved and the target of certain shape that gave the maximum force exerted on the plate was found.
EXPERIMENT FOUR: DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
4a) In Drop Tubes
Aim:
The aim of this experiment was to measure the total drag on a set of spheres that varied in diameter
and density and to investigate how this drag varies when the spheres flow through fluids of different viscosities.
Apparatus:

Glass tubes in excess of 1meter high containing water, glycerine and oil (XHVI 8.2). 

A selection of spheres of differing diameters and densities thus made from different 

materials including steel, glass, nylon and ptfe (polytetrafluoroethylene). Stopwatch 

Measuring callipers 
Method:
The very first task for this experiment was to measure the diameters of each sized sphere for each material since although they appeared the same size there were slight variances in their diameters. Having found the diameters, the volumes, areas and frontal areas were then calculated. The practical part to the experiment consisted of dropping the spheres individually into a tube of fluid – water, glycerine or XHVI 8.2 – then starting a stopwatch once it passes a marked point and stopping the time when it passes the second mark which indicated a whole meter. The top marker was a small distance beneath the surface of the liquid to allow the sphere to reach terminal velocity whilst it travelled between the two markers. By measuring the time it took to travels 1 meter, the terminal velocity could be calculated simply using speed = distance/time. After recording all the dropping times, the theoretical part to the experiment began. This comprises of finding the drag force and the Reynolds number for each case. Finally, the coefficient of drag had to be calculated using our measurements of drag force, terminal velocity and frontal area.
When the spheres are falling at terminal velocity:
D _{F} = drag force B = buoyancy mg = weight x gravity
Coefficient of Drag:
mg
_{⁄}
Reynolds number: 

Buoyancy: 
= 
A = Frontal area (πr ^{2} ) u _{∞} = Terminal velocity
d = diameter μ = dynamic viscosity
V = volume of sphere g = 9.81N
Densities Steel = 7800kg/m ^{3} Glass = 2530kg/m ^{3} Nylon = 1140kg/m ^{3} PTFE = 2160 g/m ^{3} Air = 1.225kg/m ^{3}
Results:
Water = 1000kg/m ^{3} Glycerine = 1262kg/m ^{3} XHVI 8.2 = 829kg/m ^{3}
Using the above equations details about the spheres were obtained and are stated below:
TYPES OF SPHERE 
DIAMETER 
AREAS 
VOLUMES 
FRONTAL 
MASS 
mg 

S (m) 
(m²) 
(m³) 
AREA (m²) 
(kg) 

STEEL 
Large 
5.07E04 
1.07E06 
8.36E03 
8.20E02 

Medium 
2.84E04 
4.49E07 
3.50E03 
3.44E02 

Small 
0.00634 
1.26E04 
1.33E07 
3.16E05 
1.04E03 
1.02E02 

NYLON 
Large 
0.0127 
5.07E04 
1.07E06 
1.27E04 
1.22E03 
1.20E02 
Medium 
2.88E04 
4.59E07 
5.23E04 
5.13E03 

Small 
1.26E04 
1.33E07 
1.52E04 
1.49E03 

GLASS 
Large 
5.04E04 
1.06E06 
2.69E03 
2.64E02 

Medium 
0.0054 
9.16E05 
4.55E07 
2.29E05 
1.15E03 
1.13E02 

Small 
1.26E04 
1.33E07 
3.36E04 
3.30E03 

PTFE 
Large 
5.05E04 
1.07E06 
2.30E03 
2.26E02 

Medium 
2.84E04 
4.50E07 
9.72E04 
9.54E03 

Small 
1.23E04 
1.28E07 
2.76E04 
2.71E03 
The times taken for the spheres to drop through the 1 meter marks on the tubes of different fluid are recorded below:
TYPES OF SPHERE 
TIMES (s) TO TRAVEL 1M 

WATER 
GLYCERIN 
HVI 8.2 

STEEL 
Large 
0.62 
2.91 
0.65 
Medium 
0.68 


Small 
0.82 


NYLON 
Large 
4.68 
FLOATS 
7.79 
Medium 
5.31 
FLOATS 
11.28 

Small 
7.36 
FLOATS 
19.34 

GLASS 
Large 
1.8 
13.72 
2.12 
Medium 
2.09 
22.19 
2.88 

Small 
 
 
 

PTFE 
Large 
1.5 
19.12 
2.59 
Medium 
2.2 
30.31 
3.63 

Small 
1.8 
62.63 
5.69 
(All the nylon balls floated on the surface of the glycerine and wouldn’t sink)
(There were insufficient supplies of the small glass spheres therefore no data was recorded) Using the data on drop times previously, the terminal velocity can be found by simply dividing 1 by the time taken. This is taken from the equation speed = distance/time and with the distance being 1meter over which the sphere was timed, this is the distance.
TYPES OF SPHERE 
TERMINAL VELOCITY 

STEEL 
Large 
0.344 

Medium 
0.278


Small 
0.112 

NYLON 
Large 

0.128 

Medium 

0.0887 

Small 

0.0517 

GLASS 
Large 

0.472 

Medium 

0.347 

Small 
0 
0 
0 

PTFE 
Large 

0.386 

Medium 

0.275 

Small 
0.016 
In converging all this data and further values of density of fluid and dynamic viscosities, values for drag force, buoyancy, Reynolds number and coefficient of drag were calculated and plotted on a graph of C _{D} against R _{e} .
TYPES OF SPHERE 
BOUYANCY 
DRAG FORCE 

Water 
Glycerine 
HVI 8.2 
Water 
Glycerine 
HVI 8.2 

STEEL 
Large 
1.05E02 
1.33E02 
8.72E03 
7.15E02 
6.88E02 
7.33E02 
Medium 
4.40E03 
5.56E03 
3.65E03 
3.00E02 
2.88E02 
3.07E02 

Small 
1.30E03 
1.65E03 
1.08E03 
8.87E03 
8.53E03 
9.10E03 

NYLON 
Large 
1.05E02 
1.33E02 
8.72E03 
1.47E03 
1.28E03 
3.27E03 
Medium 
4.50E03 
5.68E03 
3.73E03 
6.30E04 
5.49E04 
1.40E03 

Small 
1.30E03 
1.65E03 
1.08E03 
1.83E04 
1.59E04 
4.06E04 

GLASS 
Large 
1.04E02 
1.31E02 
8.64E03 
1.59E02 
1.32E02 
1.77E02 
Medium 
4.46E03 
5.63E03 
3.70E03 
6.83E03 
5.66E03 
7.59E03 

Small 
1.30E03 
1.65E03 
1.08E03 
2.00E03 
1.65E03 
2.22E03 

PTFE 
Large 
1.05E02 
1.32E02 
8.68E03 
1.21E02 
9.40E03 
1.39E02 
Medium 
4.41E03 
5.57E03 
3.66E03 
5.12E03 
3.96E03 
5.88E03 

Small 
1.26E03 
1.58E03 
1.04E03 
1.46E03 
1.13E03 
1.67E03 
From those two sets of data in drag force and buoyancy, the coefficients of drag and Reynolds number for each size sphere was calculated and shown below:
TYPES OF SPHERE 
COEFFICIENTS OF DRAG 
REYNOLDS NUMBER 

Water 
Glycerine 
HVI 8.2 
Water 
Glycerine 
HVI 8.2 

STEEL 
Large 
4.34E01 
7.28E+00 
5.90E01 

177.60 

Medium 
3.91E01 
8.34E+00 
8.47E01 

95.95 

Small 
3.78E01 
3.39E+01 
1.56E+00 

38.42 

NYLON 
Large 
5.09E01 
0 
3.78E+00 

14.82 

Medium 
4.94E01 
0 
5.98E+00 

7.71 

Small 
6.27E01 
0 
1.16E+01 

2.98 

GLASS 
Large 
8.21E01 
3.13E+01 
1.53E+00 

54.28 

Medium 
2.61E+00 
1.93E+02 
6.63E+00 

17.04 

Small 
 
 
 
 
 
 

PTFE 
Large 
4.33E01 
4.31E+01 
1.79E+00 

44.50 

Medium 
6.98E01 
8.13E+01 
2.63E+00 

23.81 

Small 
3.08E01 
2.28E+02 
4.26E+00 

9.98 
To find the values of Reynolds number, the dynamic viscosity needed to be known for each fluid as shown in the equation:
Reynolds number:
,
where μ is the dynamic viscosity.
Water = 9.55x10 ^{}^{4} Ns/m ^{2} Glycerine = 1.2Ns/m ^{2} XHVI 8.2 = 9.12x10 ^{}^{2} Ns/m ^{2}
By bringing together the data above, a graph was plotted showing the Coefficient of Drag on the y axis and the Reynolds numbers on the xaxis. The data for water, glycerine and XHVI 8.2 were all put on the same graph to show the trend between them as the size and density are varied giving varying results for the coefficient of drag and Reynolds numbers. Graph shown on next page.
Graph Analysis:
From the graph, it is apparent that the further away from the yaxis, the more turbulent the fluid becomes. For example, that would explain why the plots for water are more scattered rather than in a neat line because the spheres moved quickly through the water making it difficult to record an accurate time. The closer the plots are to the yaxis mean that the fluid is more viscous and therefore less turbulent. The Stokes law shows that C _{D} = 24/R _{e} only for very viscous fluids, such as XHVI 8.2 which very nearly fits this relationship. For other fluids like water that has high Reynolds numbers, this relationship does not apply.
4b) In the Wind Tunnel
Aim:
The aim is to measure the drag on a number of different spheres in a range of different flow
conditions in order to investigate the effects that pressure has on the total drag with increasing Reynolds numbers and therefore decreasing and less significant viscous effects.
Apparatus:

The body under test is mounted in a small wind tunnel on the ‘sting’ of a drag force balance. 

Four different sphere/objects were used in this investigation: 









Air was passed through the wind tunnel around the body seated on the sting and pressure values were taken at the opening of the wind tunnel and a second one right underneath the body. 
Method:
Firstly, the drag created on the sting alone was found for air speeds of maximum, minimum and one between which was subtracted from each value of drag for the bodies later on. Then the bodies were added one by one to the wind tunnel and placed on the sting and a drag value was calculated for each. To find the air speed u∞, in the tunnel for each wind speed, the upstream pitot pressure
tapping (p _{o} = p∞ + body were used. Equations used:
⁄
) and the static pressure (p∞) in the working section below the
Coefficient of Drag:
_{⁄}
Reynolds number:
Results:
Firstly, the drag on the sting in open, closed and half positions was found:
Drag on sting 

open 
closed 
half 

Mass(kg) 
0.012 
0.027 
0.019 
static 

pressure(Pa) 
150 
440 
340 
total pressure(Pa) 
50 
70 
80 
specific drag 

force(N) 
0.11772 
0.26487 
0.18639 
Using this, the following data was calculated for the different spheres at varied wind speeds:
small 

Closed Door tunnel 
big ball 
ball 
big egg 
small egg 
static pressure(Pa) 
470 
450 
440 
430 
total pressure(Pa) 
90 
95 
90 
80 
mass measured(kg) 
0.162 
0.057 
0.07 
0.046 
total drag force(N) 
1.58922 
0.55917 
0.6867 
0.45126 
specific drag force(N) 
1.32435 
0.55917 
0.42183 
0.18639 
upstream velocity of air(m/s) 
24.58543 
24.583 
24.58179 
24.58057 
drag coefficient 
0.455734 
0.769684 
0.24483 
0.346892 
Reynolds number 
1.64E+05 
8.19E+04 
1.26E+05 
7.05E+04 
small 

open door tunnel 
big ball 
ball 
big egg 
small egg 
static pressure(Pa) 
160 
160 
160 
170 
total pressure(Pa) 
30 
30 
30 
40 
mass measured(kg) 
0.066 
0.022 
0.032 
0.017 
total drag force(N) 
0.64746 
0.21582 
0.31392 
0.16677 
specific drag force(N) 
0.52974 
0.0981 
0.1962 
0.04905 
upstream velocity of air(m/s) 
12.76182 
12.76182 
12.76182 
12.76245 
drag coefficient 
0.674486 
0.499619 
0.421335 
0.337763 
Reynolds number 
8.53E+04 
4.27E+04 
6.57E+04 
3.67E+04 
small 
small 

half open door 
big ball 
ball 
big egg 
egg 
static pressure(Pa) 
310 
300 
320 
280 
total pressure(Pa) 
50 
70 
50 
50 
mass measured(kg) 
0.116 
0.039 
0.064 
0.034 
total drag force(N) 
1.13796 
0.38259 
0.62784 
0.33354 
specific drag force(N) 
0.95157 
0.1962 
0.44145 
0.14715 
upstream velocity of air(m/s) 
20.59305 
20.59203 
20.59406 
20.59 
drag coefficient 
0.465991 
0.384322 
0.364617 
0.38988 
1.07E 

Reynolds number 
1.38E+05 
1.24E05 
1.91E05 
05 
To find the density of air, certain values such as kinematic and dynamic viscosities had to be found and also the density of atmosphere and then RT which is R = 287Jkg ^{}^{1} K ^{}^{1} x T = 288K:
density 

kinematic viscosity of air 
dynamic viscosity 
(atm) 
RT 

big ball 
1.50E05 
1.84E05 
101662.992 
82656 
small 

ball 
1.50E05 
1.84E05 
101662.992 
82656 
big egg 
1.50E05 
1.84E05 
101662.992 
82656 
small 

egg 
1.50E05 
1.84E05 
101662.992 
82656 
Therefore, the density of air was found using these equations:
ρ(abs) = ρ(atm) = ρ(static) ρ(atm) = ρ(merc) x g x h ρ(air) = ρ(abs) / RT
thus:
(ρ(merc) = 13600kg/m ^{3} , h = 0.762m)
Closed 
Open 
Half 

density of 
density 

p(abs) 
air 
p(abs) 
density of air 
p(abs) 
of air 
101193 
1.224267 


101213 
1.224509 


101223 
1.22463 


101233 
1.224751 

The graphs are as follows:
Graph analysis:
My results show a strong correlation similar to that of the graph shown in the lab report notes. It represents that for high Reynolds numbers, the coefficient of drag is very low meaning that the viscosity of the fluid is very low and turbulence is very likely to occur. In this case of the wind tunnel we were dealing with air flow which causes a lot of turbulence when passing non aerodynamic surfaces or bodies.
Discussion:
Judging by my graph of all the Reynolds number vs all the coefficients of drag, they seem to compare well with the graph provided in the notes showing and steady negative correlation with increasing Reynolds numbers and then plateau slightly before another steep drop in the coefficient of drag which in my graph is represented by the wind tunnel results that appear to be a random scatter of plots. This will probably be due to inaccuracies with in the apparatus and in taking measurements too.
The NavierStokes law does apply to my results but only for the low Reynolds values where they are close to the yaxis and the viscosity is high.