Padnos School of Engineering

Grand Valley State University

EGR 365
Fluid Mechanics
Dr. Blekhman
Laboratory Report #10
Drag Coefficient of a Sphere
Matt Reimink
10/16/2013
Grading Rubric
Outline
Purpose
The purpose of the laboratory exercise is to measure the drag coefficient of a sphere as a function
of Reynolds number.
Experiment
Setup
The setup for the wind tunnel is as shown.
Theory
Definition of Drag Force from force balance.
2
t D B W
V AC
2
1
F F
Definition of Reynolds Number

Vd
R
d
e
Definition of error discrepancy
100
l theoretica
l theoretica al experiment
%Error

Definition of propagated error

1
1
]
1

,
_

+
,
_

2
x2
2
2
x1
2
2
u
x2
f
u
x1
f
f
1
f in y uncertaint %
Present Major Results
Mass (kg) Time 1 (s) Time 2 (s) Time 3 (s) Avg. Time (s) Avg. Velocity (m/s) Reynolds Number
0.0729 0.75 0.81 0.80 0.787 1.162 3.91E+04
0.0401 1.72 1.6 1.76 1.693 0.540 1.81E+04
0.0282 37.02 32.43 36.09 35.180 0.0260 8.73E+02
The experimental data was used to calculate the experimental drag coefficient.
Mass (kg) CD Experimental CD Theoretical % Error
0.0729 0.588 0.45 30.57%
0.0401 0.738 0.44 67.75%
0.0282 7.839 0.5 1467.77%
The theoretical and experimental values were then graphed against each other.
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
0.00E+00 1.00E+04 2.00E+04 3.00E+04 4.00E+04 5.00E+04
Re
Experimental Theoretical
Error Discussion
The error was calculated using the same table as above.
Mass (kg) CD Experimental CD Theoretical % Error
0.0729 0.588 0.45 30.57%
0.0401 0.738 0.44 67.75%
0.0282 7.839 0.5 1467.77%
Conclusions
1.) The minimum experimental drag coefficient on the sphere was 0.588 and the maximum
was 7.839.
2.) The minimum percent error for the experimental data was roughly 30% while the
maximum was 1468%.
3.) Discrepancies were attributed to the wall effects, nonlinear descent, measurement errors,
unsmooth surfaces and irregular compensation for helical effects.
Purpose
The purpose of the laboratory exercise is to measure the drag coefficient of a sphere as a function
of Reynolds number.
Experimental Setup and Theory
As an object falls through a fluid, whether it be water or air, it will naturally experience a gravity
force pulling it down, but less intuitive, it will experience a drag force and possibly a buoyant
force opposing the downward motion. Both the gravity and buoyant force a constant, but the
drag force is directly related to velocity. Figure 1 shows the force balance acting on the object as
it falls.
Figure 1: Force balance of a falling object.
The experimental apparatus used to perform this laboratory exercise is shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Experimental test apparatus.
Important dimensions, mainly those pertinent to calculations, can be seen in Table 1 along with
other constants and variables needed.
Table 1: Laboratory dimensions and constants.
Measurement Value
Diameter of Sphere, (m) 0.03763
Volume of Sphere, (m
3
) 2.79E-05
Density of Water, (kg/m
3
) 1000
Viscosity (Ns/m
2
) 1.12x10-3
Length of Fall, (m) 0.9144
Length before water, (m) 0.4318
Buoyant Force, (N) 0.274
Each force acting on the body had to be calculated in order to determine the drag coefficient
acting on the cylinder. First the buoyant force for a sphere was calculated using Equation (1).
g F
B
(1)
Next the force of the weight was calculated using Equation (2).
mg F
W

(2)
Finally the drag force was evaluated. Equation (3) shows that the drag force is directly related to
the velocity of the sphere.
2
D D
V AC
2
1
F
(3)
From Figure 1 it is possible to notice that the weight force minus the buoyant force is equal to
the drag force acting on the body. Therefore, Equation (3) can be rewritten to express the drag
force in terms of the buoyant and weight forces, when the sphere has reached terminal velocity.
2
t D B W
V AC
2
1
F F
(4)
The drag coefficient acting on the sphere can therefore be calculated once the terminal velocity is
known. Since the drag coefficient is calculated for the sphere, it is also important to know the
Reynolds number for the sphere so the data can be compared to theoretical published values.
Equation (5) is the equation for calculating the Reynolds number.

Vd
R
d
e (5)
Discussion of Results
First the velocity was calculated as a function of time. Since the ball needs to be traveling at
terminal speed in order to perform the correct force balance, the velocity had to be determined.
Equation (6) is the velocity in terms of time.
( ) ( )
( )
( ) 1
1
1
]
1

B W D
B W D
F F AC 2 1 m
2t
F F AC 2 1 m
2t
D B W
e 1
e 1
AC 2 1 F F t V
(6)
The derivation of Equation (6) can be seen in Appendix A. Measurements should be taken at
roughly 90% of terminal velocity; therefore Equation (6) was used to determine how far the ball
had to fall in order for terminal velocity to be reached. Equation (7) was used to determine the
length.
( )
D
0.90Vt
AC
19 mln
l
(7)
A drag coefficient of 0.45 was used for the calculation and the length was calculated for the
heaviest sphere. The derivation can be seen in Appendix A. The length was calculated to be
roughly 0.4289m or 16.89in. The length calculation is an overestimate of the actual path length
because of the calculations. Since the distance left was 17in. it proves that the sphere was
traveling at terminal velocity for the measurements. The length required could have also been
determined experimentally by taking many data time and length readings to figure out where
acceleration is zero.
Three measurements were taken for each of the three spheres, and the average velocity was
calculated and tabulated. Table 2 is the tabulation of the experimental results.
Table 2: Experimental data.
Mass (kg) Time 1 (s) Time 2 (s) Time 3 (s) Avg. Time (s) Avg. Velocity (m/s) Reynolds Number
0.0729 0.75 0.81 0.80 0.787 1.162 3.91E+04
0.0401 1.72 1.6 1.76 1.693 0.540 1.81E+04
0.0282 37.02 32.43 36.09 35.180 0.0260 8.73E+02
Using the data in Table 2 it was possible to calculate the experimental and theoretical drag
coefficient. The Reynolds number was used along with Figure 9.21 from Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics, 4
th
Edition. The values were calculated and tabulated and can be found in Table 3.
Table 3: Comparison of experimental and theoretical values.
Mass (kg) CD Experimental CD Theoretical % Error
0.0729 0.588 0.45 30.57%
0.0401 0.738 0.44 67.75%
0.0282 7.839 0.5 1467.77%
The theoretical and experimental values were then plotted against the Reynolds number. The
graphical representation of the data is shown in Figure 3.
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
0.00E+00 1.00E+04 2.00E+04 3.00E+04 4.00E+04 5.00E+04
Re
C
D
Experimental Theoretical
Figure 3: Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for theoretical and experimental data.
For the most part, the theoretical values held together, while the experimental values varied by
quite a bit. For our range of Reynolds numbers, the graph should have represented the linear
region as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: CD versus Reynolds number.
Since the drag coefficient relies so heavily on the Reynolds number, it was important to try and
model sphere that would yield Reynolds number in the linear region between 10
3
and 10
4
.
Error Discussion
For this particular laboratory exercise the error will be a discrepancy between the theoretical
values calculated and the experimentally measured data and the propagated error in calculating
the velocity. This percent discrepancy can be found using the equation:
100
l theoretica
l theoretica al experiment
%Error

(8)
Table 4 is a tabulation of the error data, both for individual values. Sample calculations can be
seen in Appendix B.
The reason for the insanely high error for the mass of 0.0282kg is the fact that the weight force
and the buoyant force almost cancel each other out. Therefore, the sphere barely sank down in
the tube. Also, due to the fact that the balls had to be filled with BBs, they were no longer
smooth on the outside, but rather had irregular rough spots. This had two main effects on the
drag coefficient calculations. First, the drag coefficient was desired for a smooth sphere.
Second, the irregular rough spots caused the ball to move in a helical pattern. This increased
both the time of the descent and the length travel by the ball. However, the time value was the
only one that was compensated, which ended up skewing the velocity calculations.
Another smaller effect was the ball bumping into the wall on the descent. These wall effects
change many of the properties of the flow, mainly the viscous effects.
The way to deal with error propagation is to determine the uncertainty in every variable used
when solving for another variable. If f was a function of x
1
and x
2
, f(x1, x2) the uncertainty of f
would be
1
1
]
1

,
_

+
,
_

2
x2
2
2
x1
2
2
u
x2
f
u
x1
f
f
1
f in y uncertaint %
(9)
Using Equation (9) it will be possible to determine the propagated error in all our measurements.
Conclusions
1.) The minimum experimental drag coefficient on the sphere was 0.588 and the maximum
was 7.839.
2.) The minimum percent error for the experimental data was roughly 30% while the
maximum was 1468%.
3.) Discrepancies were attributed to the wall effects, nonlinear descent, measurement errors,
unsmooth surfaces and irregular compensation for helical effects.
Appendix A
Derivation of Equations
Appendix B
Sample Calculations
Appendix C
Experimental results.
Measurement Pressure Reading -Cp % of Chord Location dc Riemann Sum
1 -0.06 0.3 80 2.80 0.3506 0.1052
2 -0.115 0.575 70 2.45 0.3506 0.2016
3 -0.125 0.625 60 2.10 0.3506 0.2191
4 -0.145 0.725 50 1.75 0.3506 0.2542
5 -0.164 0.82 40 1.40 0.3506 0.2875
6 -0.169 0.845 30 1.05 0.3506 0.2963
7 -0.188 0.94 20 0.70 0.3506 0.3296
8 -0.172 0.86 10 0.35 0.08765 0.0754
9 -0.135 0.675 7.5 0.26 0.26295 0.1775
11 -0.16 0.8 7.5 0.26 -0.08765 -0.0701
12 -0.08 0.4 10 0.35 -0.3506 -0.1402
13 -0.015 0.075 20 0.70 -0.3506 -0.0263
14 -0.01 0.05 30 1.05 -0.3506 -0.0175
15 -0.005 0.025 40 1.40 -0.3506 -0.0088
16 0 0 50 1.75 -0.3506 0.0000
17 0.003 -0.015 60 2.10 -0.3506 0.0053
18 0.006 -0.03 70 2.45 -0.3506 0.0105
10 0.188 -0.94 0 0 -0.26295 0.2472
CL 0.5551
L (lbf) 1.747
Appendix D
Theoretical lift coefficient values for a Clark Y-14 airfoil
1
.
1
Compliments of the University of Tennessee website. http://www.engr.utk.edu/~rbond/airfoil.html
Appendix E
Dimensioned test apparatus.