FACULTY OF PETROLEUM AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI
MALAYSIA FLUID MECHANICS
LABORATORY
TITLE OF EXPERIMENT
JET IMPACT (E3)
Name

MUHAMMAD KHAIRIL IKRAM(A13KP0047)

AKMAL FAIZ BIN ABDUL RAHIM (A13KP0008)
ABDUL WAHAB (A13KP4006)
KSATRIYA ANANTAYUTYA (A13KP4001)

Group / Section

1/Section

Supervisor

Associate Professor Issham bin Ismail

Date of Experiment

10/3/2014

Date of Submission

16/3/201
4

Marks obtained (%)

OBJECTIVE:
The objectives of this experiment are:
1. To measure the force produced by a jet on flat and curved surfaces.
2. To compare the experimental results with the theoretically calculated values

INTRODUCTION:
Water turbines are widely used throughout the world to generate power. In the type of water
turbine referred to as a Pelton wheel, one or more water jets are directed tangentially on to
vanes or buckets that are fastened to the rim of the turbine disc. The impact of the water on
the vanes generates a torque on the wheel, causing it to rotate and to develop power.
Although the concept is essentially simple, such turbines can generate considerable output at
high efficiency. Powers in excess of 100 MW, and hydraulic efficiencies greater than 95%,
are not uncommon. It may be noted that the Pelton wheel is best suited to conditions where
the available head of water is great, and the flow rate is comparatively small. For example,
with a head of 100 m and a flow rate of 1 m3/s, a Pelton wheel running at some 250 rev/min
could be used to develop about 900 kW. The same water power would be available if the
head were only 10 m and the flow were 10m3/s, but
a different type of turbine would then be needed

SUMMARY
In this experiment the force generated by the jet of water striking a flat plate or a
hemispherical cup is measured and results are compared to those of the computed flow rate
in the jet. Through the use of simple moments an equation was derived so that the force
exerted by the jet using the jockey weight , the graduated length of the pivot arm, and the
distance from the pivot to the jet acting at zero point of the jockey weight will be measured.
The force acting on the surfaces for various flow rates is also measured. Results are
represented in a table and in form of graphs.

Theory

Force can be defined as the rate at which momentum changes in a system, When
a
fluid is deflected by a solid surface the fluid momentum changes because the
direction changes and it therefore exerts a force on that surface. In the same way,
fluid which is discharged from a reservoir through a nozzle exerts a reaction force
on the nozzle and attached hose. Although real fluids are viscous and viscous
interaction is responsible for some force, most of the force exerted in these cases
is due to the change in fluid momentum. A control volume analysis can be used to
determine the impact force of the jet, as shown in equation [1] for flat plate and
equation [2] for hemispherical plate.

Force = Rate of change in momentum

Fth m v v'

av v v cos
av 2 av 2 cos

For flat plate (diagram 1), = 90o, therefore cos = 0 , so

Fth av 2

eqn.[1]

For hemispherical plate (diagram 2), = 180 o, therefore cos = -1, So

Fth av v v
2 av 2

eqn.[2]

where,
Fth

= Theoretical force exerted on the plate (Newton)

= Cross-sectional area of nozzle (m2)

= Density of water (kg/m3)

Angle of water flow after impact on the plate surface

= Velocity of water jet before impact on the plate surface

= Velocity of water jet after impact on the plate surface

Equation [1] and [2] also predicts the reaction force opposite to the flow direction
in the reaction of a jet experiment, which is the focus of this analysis.

PROCEDURE

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

6.0

The flat plate was fixed in its place. Extra care was carried out when we are fixing the
plate to make the replacing plate at the end of first set of experiment easier.
Standard weights for each plate apparatus was putted by putting weights on the spring
plat until the coils will touch each other.
The level of the standard indicator was adjusted with the position of the plate containing
the weight. This was taken as the standard. The total standard weight was noted.
The water control valve was closed. Both switches of the pump and open the water
control valve were then opened slowly until it reached its maximum.
Then, plate with the standard weight was increase above the standard mark. At this point,
more weights were added until the indicator plate returned to the standard mark. The total
maximum weight for the first reading of the load was taken.
The valve of the water tank was closed and when the volume reaches 2 liter, the time for
it to reaches 7 liter was taken. The total volume of accumulated water was 5 liter.
The total weight load then reduced, plate apparatus will change from the standard mark,
the flow of the water jet was also reduced by closing the control valve slowly until the
plate apparatus returned to the standard mark level. Step 6 was then repeated.
For the next reading, step 7 and 6 was repeated until the last total weight load is the same
with the standard weight load.
Steps 1 to 8 were then repeated using the hemispherical surface plate.
When the experiment is completed, the control valve was closed. Both pumps were
switched off All equipment used in this experiment were then cleaned.

Data and Analysis

Water density, = 1000 kg/m3

Water velocity of the jet by the nozzle with diameter d = 5 mm

Q
V
A

m liter

x
x
s s m 2 103 liter
m

where
V

= Water velocity (m/s)

= Volumetric flow rate of water

= Area of nozzle with diameter d (m2)

2
... m

xd

m
2

x d mm x
3

4
10 mm

Hence, the force measured is

weight (gram)
x 9.81m/s

Fmea
1000 gram/kg
gram x 9.81x10

3 Newton

RESULTS
Flat plate
Standard Weight

= 700 (g)

Time
(Second)

Q
(L/S)

Maximum Weight
V
(m/s)

= 1300 (g)

Log V

Weight
Load
(Gram)

Actual
Weight
(Gram)

Fmea
(Newton)

1300
1200

600
500

5.89
4.90

14.38
16.16

0.348
0.309

17.67
15.74

6.13
4.86

1.247

0.770

1.197

0.690

12.07
0.82

1100

400

3.92

18.71

0.267

13.60

3.63

1.134

0.593

7.99

1000

300

2.94

21.31

0.235

11.97

2.81

1.078

0.468

4.63

900

200

1.96

28.10

0.178

9.12

1.63

0.960

0.292

20.25

800

100

0.98

42.78

0.117

5.96

0.70

0.775

-0.009

40.00

700

Log Fmea

Percentage of relative
error

Fth
(Newton)

Log Fmea

Percentage of relative
error

Fmea Fth
x100
Fth

Hemispherical plate
Standard Weight

= 700 (g)
Time
(Second)

Q
(L/S)

Maximum Weight
V
(m/s)

= 1700 (g)

Weight
Load
(Gram)

Actual
Weight
(Gram)

Fmea
(Newton)

1700

1000

9.81

13.38

0.374

19.05

14.25

1.280

0.992

31.16

1600

900

8.83

14.3

0.350

17.83

12.48

1.251

0.946

29.25

1500

800

7.85

15.36

0.326

16.60

10.82

1.220

0.895

27.45

1400

700

6.87

16.66

0.300

15.28

9.17

1.184

0.837

25.08

1300

600

5.89

17.56

0.285

14.51

8.27

1.162

0.770

28.78

1200

500

4.91

19.47

0.257

13.09

6.73

1.117

0.691

27.04

1100

400

3.92

21.75

0.230

11.71

5.38

1.069

0.593

27.14

1000

300

2.943

23.15

0.216

11.00

4.75

1.041

0.469

38.04

900

200

1.962

25.70

0.195

9.93

3.87

0.997

0.293

49.30

800

100

0.981

28.63

0.175

8.91

3.12

0.950

-0.008

68.56

700

Fth
(Newton)

Graph of Log Fmea Vs Log V

1.200

Log V

Fmea Fth
x100
Fth

y = 2.7744x - 2.4792
R = 0.9369
1.000

0.800

y = 1.6585x - 1.299
R = 0.9985

0.600
Flat plate Hemispherical plate
Linear (Flat plate)
Linear (Hemispherical plate)
0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000

-0.200

Lo
g
F
0.200
m
e
a

0.400

0.600

0.800

Log V (m/s)

1.000

1.200

1.400

DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION

A. Estimate the slope of the graph for each plate and compare with the
theoretical value as shown in eq. 1 and eq. 2, respectively. Comment on the
difference.

The slope of the graph 1 for flat plate is a linear graph. By logging both side of
the theoretical equation for flat plate we are able to get:
Fth

av2

Log Fth

Log av2

Log + Log a + Log v2

Log Fth

2Log v + A

(1)

(2),

Where A is constant, A= Log + Log a

While the slope of graph 2 for hemispherical plate is also a linear graph. By
logging both side of the theoretical equation for hemispherical plate we are able
to get:

Fth

2av2

Log Fth

Log 2av2

Log 2 + Log + Log a + Log v2

Log Fth

(1)

2Log v + B

. (2)

Where B is constant, B= Log 2 + Log + Log a

(The same goes for Fmea)

The slope of Fmea on flat plate is 1.6585 while its Fth is 1.9868. The differences
of slope is only 0.3283, and slightly deviated from the theoretical value but still result
can be considered acceptable. The difference might be caused by the height between the
nozzle and the vane due to the change of vanes as all vanes do not have equal heights. As
for hemispherical plate, the Fmea slope is 2.7744 while its Fth 1.9997. The difference is
also 0.7747 thus it can be considered as acceptable. The difference might be cause by
error such as bubbles present in the water can be a reason to get inaccurate readings as
10

well.

11

A. Estimate the y-intercept ratio of hemispherical to flat plate and compare with
the theoretical ratio, as deduced from eq. 1 and eq. 2. Comment on the
difference.
Y- Intercept ratio of hemispherical plate to flat plate
Ratio = -2.4792/-1.299 = 1.9085 (Fmean)
Ratio= -1.4057/1.5921 = 0.8835 (Ftheory)
The ratio of y-intercept of hemispherical to flat plate for (Fmea) is 1.9085:1 while the
ratio of y-intercept of hemispherical to flat plate for (Fth) is 0.8835:1. Both values for
gradient and y-intercept for both graphs are not identical, but the result obtained is
still near to the theoretical value. So, the data that we calculated and recorded can be

considered acceptable. The differences might be due to errors when taking the
measurement and might be due to systematic errors while handling experiment
apparatus.
B. Comparing the force exerted on the hemispherical vane with the one on the
flat plate, which one is greater? Why?
Comparison of force on both plates
Force exerted on both hemispherical plates and the flat plate was totally different.
Force exerted on hemispherical plate greater than flat plate because it lies on the
behavior of water jet when it strikes the flat surface. It forms a radial sheet which

impinges on the inner wall of the surrounding cylinder, and then divides, some of the
water flowing down the cylinder wall and the rest flowing upwards. Although visibility is
impaired by the spray which is generated, it does seem that some water falls on to the top
side of the vane. This would have the effect of producing a small momentum force in the
downwards direction, so reducing the net upwards force on the vane.

1) Comparing the percentage of relative error for the two plates as function of
jet velocity. Comment on the analysis. Can one deduce sources of error due
to the shape of the plates? Explain your reason. State other possible sources
of error.
Comparison of the percentage of relative error for the two plates
Based on our data, the percentage of relative error for both plates different,
that is 12.07% for flat plate and 31.16% for hemispherical plate. The percentage
of error ranged from around 0.82% to around 68.56%. If we have less percentage
relative error, so it means jet velocity is more constant. Some of the percentages
error are large due to several errors made during the experiment.
The shape of the plate can be as sources of error, because the equation
using the angle where the impact of the velocity from water to the surface of the
plate, so if the plate is not in perfect shape , in case got incomplete sphere , the
angle will be different which will get a different force. Then possible source of
error could be is spring coil. The shape of coil must be in a standard position
which is straight. If not, the velocity that applied by the water is not accurate.
i.

Briefly discuss factors contributing to errors or inaccuracy in experimental

data and propose recommendation to improve the results.
While conducting the experiment several errors may have been made which

affected accuracy of our data. Firstly, parallax error occurred when we were taking the
reading of 5 L water in the water tank and when we were synchronizing the height of
weight with standard height. Secondly, the control valve may not be open to maximum.
Thirdly, the time reading for increasing of 5 L water may not be accurate. The contact
angle between water and the plates also may not be the same as stated in experimental
procedure. The spring that was used to balance the weights may not be able to be
compressed to its full potential

There are some precautionary steps that we must follow in order to obtain data with high
degree of accuracy. First of all, make sure that all the apparatus is in good condition and do
some repetition in the experiment so that the reading will accurate and precise. Secondly,
always remember to open the control valve to its maximum so steady flow rate of water can be
achieved. Next, tally the standard height carefully so that the weight height and the standard
height is equal. Parallax error can be avoided via placing our eye position perpendicular to the
meniscus of water. Furthermore, the surfaces of plates also should be examined before
carrying the experiment to eliminate possibilities of defect surfaces. The control valve should be
handled carefully and slowly to avoid disturbance in the water flow rate. The person who taking
the time reading should remained focus and alert while taking the time do that better data can be
obtained.

Conclusion:
There are two important points that the graphs and results highlight,

1. The rate on flow, Q, is directly proportional to the force resulted from the impact of the jet
on the plates. This relation was shown clearly by the two plots. This proportionaliy was
already predicted by the equation of momentum for calculating the force.
2. There is higher efficiency in using the hemispherical cup for turbines. Keeping in mind that
the angles made for the watering exiting the cup should be less than 180 degrees so to
prevent the reduction of force due to collision of the water entering and water exiting the
cup.

REFERENCES

Fluid Mechanics (Fundamental and Application) Second Edition in SI Units by Yunus A.

Cengel and John M. Cimbala
Fundamental of Fluid Mechanics by Bruce R. Munson, Donald F. Young, Theodore H.
Okiishi

(2) Munson, B.R., D.F. Young, and T.H. Okiishi (2006). Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. 5th
Edition. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Douglas, J.F., J.M. Gasiorek, and J.A. Swaffield (1981). Fluid Mechanics. 3rd
Edition. London: Longman Scientific and Technical.
(Munson, B.R., D.F. Young, and T.H. Okiishi (2006). Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics. 5th Edition. London: John Wiley and Sons.The vol

Appendices
Calculation

Fmea

600 g
x 9.81 m/s
1000 gram/kg
0.6g x 9.81 x 10 3 Newton

5.891