Abstract

The impinging jet experiment studies the balance forces as the water jet hits different targets.
The principle involved in this experiment is the conservation of linear momentum. In this
experiment, the flow velocity, Reynold’s number, experimental and theoretical coefficients of
force were determined and compared. The volume flow rate squared was plotted against the
mass required. According to the results, some trials of this experiment were successful as they
fell within the 10% error margin. However, some major sources of errors existed in the
experiment and thus affected the final results of some trials. However, the results generally
followed the principle.
Table of Contents

Cover page…………………………………………………………………………………………

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..

Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Experimental Facility and Apparatus……………………………………………………………..

Experimental Procedure…………………………………………………………………………..

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Statement of Uncertainty…………………………………………………………………………

Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………………………...

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….

References…………………………………………………………………………………………
Introduction
The objective of this experiment was to study the forces of a weight against an impinging water
jet. The volume flow rate was measured so that the experimental coefficient of force could be
compared to the theoretical coefficient of force. The plot of mass against Q2 was plotted so that
their relation could be studied. The experiment was carried out on the hydraulic bench. The
water jet was shot up through the nozzle against different targets and the weights were used to
balance the pan in place.
Theory
The pressure and the temperature of the room were deemed to constant and hence, not involved
in the calculations.
Pressure P = 1 atm = 101325 Pa
Temperature T = 25oC = 298.15 K
Density of water ρ = 1000 kg/m3
This experiment involved a shooting of jet of water at different targets. The conservation of
linear momentum caused the force equilibrium of the jet forces and the weight on the pan. The
volume flow rate when the forces are at equilibrium was measured to calculate the Reynold’s
number, theoretical and experimental coefficients of force. The mass and the Q2 were plotted and
their relation was studied while the theoretical and experimental coefficients of force were
plotted.
The following variables were used:
Q = volume flow rate
V = velocity of the flow
A = area of nozzle exit
m = mass of the weight on the lid
g = acceleration due to gravity
ρ = density of water
µ = viscosity of water = 0.00089 Pa s
Fy exp = experimental force
Fy theory = theoretical force
Cf exp = experimental coefficient of force
Cf theory = theoretical coefficient of force

Sample calculations
Volume flow rate Q:
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 (10)(0.001)
𝑄= = = 1.802 ∗ 10−4 𝑚/𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 55.48
Velocity of flow V:
𝑄 0.0001802
𝑉= = = 3.77 𝑚/𝑠
𝐴 4.78 ∗ 10−5

Experimental force Fy exp:

𝐹𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑝 = 𝑚𝑔 = .1 ∗ 9.81 = 0.981 𝑁

Theoretical force Fy theory:

90o :
𝑄2 0.00018022
𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 𝜌 = 1000 ∗ ( ) = 0.6797 𝑁
𝐴 4.78 ∗ 10−5
120o :
𝑄2 0.00018132
𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 3𝜌 = 1.5 ∗ 1000 ∗ ( ) = 1.031 𝑁
2𝐴 4.78 ∗ 10−5
180o :
𝑄2 0.00018132
𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = 2𝜌 = 2 ∗ 1000 ∗ ( ) = 0.919 𝑁
𝐴 4.78 ∗ 10−5

The experimental coefficient of force is directly proportional to the experimental force and
inversely proportional to the velocity of the flow.
𝐹𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝐶𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝 =
0.5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴
0.981
𝐶𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝 = = 2.889
0.5 ∗ 1000 ∗ 3.772 ∗ 4.78 ∗ 10−5
The theoretical coefficient of force 𝐶𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 :
𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦
𝐶𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =
0.5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴
0.6797
𝐶𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 = = 2.001
0.5 ∗ 1000 ∗ 3.772 ∗ 4.78 ∗ 10−5
As with most other experiments, the fluid flow in this experiment was assumed to be
incompressible and steady. The apparatus was set up in a way such that the effect of gravity
could be assumed to be negligible. Friction was also not put into account.
Experimental Facility and Apparatus
The whole experiment was carried out on the hydraulic bench with the additional apparatuses
like the jet impact apparatus (Figure 1). This apparatus consisted of a tank, the target plate, the
nozzle and the weight pan. The target plate was placed right above the nozzle so the jet would hit
it in the center. The weight pan was above the target plate.

Figure 1. Jet Impact Apparatus

Figure 2. Jet impact Apparatus with 90 degree target Figure 3. Jet Impact Apparatus with 120 degree target

The above figures show target plates of different angles.

Experimental Procedure
- Firstly, the hydraulic bench was set up by connecting the water supply to the tank and
then the tank to the container
- The target plate was positioned
- The weight was placed on the weight pan after the pan was put in equilibrium position
- The jet is started and the force of the impact was increased until the weight pan reached
equilibrium position
- The water was collected and the time taken to fill 10 liters was recorded
- The procedures were repeated with different weights and targets
Results

Target angle (deg) Mass (g) Q² (s-2)

100 3.25E-08
150 7.3E-08
90
200 6.73E-08
250 1.08E-07
100 3.29E-08
150 4.69E-08
120
200 5.64E-08
250 6.48E-08
100 2.2E-08
150 3.38E-08
180
200 3.72E-08
250 5.27E-08
Table 1.

Table 1 shows the Q2 values with their corresponding values of mass.

Target angle (deg) Mass (g) Re Cfyexp Cfytheory

100 33.06 2.89 2.00
150 49.54 1.93 2.00
90
200 47.58 2.79 2.00
250 60.27 2.17 2.00
100 33.24 2.85 3.00
150 39.72 3.00 3.00
120
200 43.56 3.32 3.00
250 46.69 3.62 3.00
100 27.18 4.27 4.00
150 33.73 4.16 4.00
180
200 35.39 5.04 4.00
250 42.10 4.45 4.00
Table 2.

Table 2 compares the theoretical and experimental coefficients of force along with their
corresponding Reynold’s number.
 Mass Vs Q^2 (90 degree)
1.2E-07

0.0000001 y = 4E-10x - 7E-09

8E-08

6E-08

4E-08

2E-08

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 4. Plot of Mass vs Q^2 for 90 degree plate

REYNOLDS NO. VS COEFFICIENT OF

FORCE (90 DEG)
exp theory

3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Figure 5. Plot of Reynold's number vs Coefficient of force for 90 degree plate

 Mass Vs Q^2 (120 degree)
7E-08
y = 2E-10x + 1E-08
6E-08

5E-08

4E-08

3E-08

2E-08

1E-08

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 6. Plot of Mass vs Q^2 for 120 degree plate

REYNOLDS NO. VS COEFFICIENT OF

FORCE (120 DEG)
exp theory

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Figure 7. Plot of Reynold's number vs Coefficient of force for 120 degree plate
 Mass Vs Q^2 (180 degree)
6E-08

5E-08 y = 2E-10x + 3E-09

4E-08

3E-08

2E-08

1E-08

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 8 Plot of Mass vs Q^2 for 180 degree plate

REYNOLDS NO. VS COEFFICIENT

OF FORCE (180 DEG)
exp theory

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Figure 9. Plot of Reynold's number vs Coefficient of force for 180 degree plate

As shown in the plots of mass versus Q2 (Figures 4,6,8), the square of volume flow rate increases
with increasing mass.
For the plots of Reynolds number versus the coefficients of force, there isn’t any trend as some
small errors in readings and measurements exist in these experiments. However, these errors tend
to be less significant with higher Reynold’s number.
 Target angle (deg) Re Cfy exp Cfy theory % error in CF
33.06 2.89 2.00 44
49.54 1.93 2.00 4
90
47.58 2.79 2.00 39
60.27 2.17 2.00 9
33.24 2.85 3.00 5
39.72 3.00 3.00 0
120
43.56 3.32 3.00 11
46.69 3.62 3.00 21
27.18 4.27 4.00 7

33.73 4.16 4.00 4

180
35.39 5.04 4.00 26
42.10 4.45 4.00 11
Table 3. Values of coefficients of force and their percentage error

Table 3 shows the percentage errors of the coefficient of force and while most of the readings are
within a successful range, there are some measurements that resulted in big percentage error.
Statement of Uncertainty
As seen from the table of results, there are several measurements with major errors. They prove
that there were some major sources of errors in this experiment. Firstly, the jet of water was
assumed to be incompressible and steady but it is obvious that the jet was unsteady.
In order to have no momentum transfer in the horizontal direction, the target plate had to be
aligned perfected for the jet of water. It is almost impossible to have it perfectly aligned and with
the unsteady jet, it was impossible to have no momentum transfer in the horizontal direction.
There was also systematic intrinsic error when recording the time taken due to human reaction
time. In this experiment, the effect of gravity on the jet was also neglected however, this still
affected the final measurements and caused some systematic intrinsic errors. This also applies to
the friction that had been neglected.

Error Propagation
Error in volume flow rate Q:
𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝑄=
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
2 2
𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝑄
𝛿𝑄 = √( 𝛿𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒) + ( 𝛿𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒)
𝜕𝑣𝑞𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝜕𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

2 2
1 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
√
𝛿𝑄 = ( 𝛿𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒) + (− 𝛿𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒)
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 2

Error in Velocity V:
𝑄
𝑉=
𝐴

2 2
𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝑉
𝛿𝑉 = √( 𝛿𝑄) + ( 𝛿𝑉)
𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝑉

2 2
1 𝑄
𝛿𝑉 = √( 𝛿𝑄) + (− 2 𝛿𝐴)
𝐴 𝐴
Error in measured Force Fy exp:
𝐹𝑦 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑔

2 2
𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝐹
𝛿𝐹 = √( 𝛿𝑚) + ( 𝛿𝑔)
𝜕𝑚 𝜕𝑔

𝛿𝑉 = √(𝑔𝛿𝑚)2 + (𝑚𝛿𝑔)2
Error in theoretical Force Fy theory:
𝑄2
𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =𝜌
𝐴
2 2 2
𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝐹
𝛿𝐹 = √( 𝛿𝜌) + ( 𝛿𝑄) + ( 𝛿𝐴)
𝜕𝜌 𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝐴

22 2
𝑄2 𝑄 𝑄2
𝛿𝐹 = √( 𝛿𝜌) + (𝜌 𝛿𝑄) + (−𝜌 2 𝛿𝐴)
𝐴 𝐴 𝐴

Error in experimental coefficient of force Cf exp:

𝐹𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝐶𝑓𝑒𝑥𝑝 =
. 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2𝐴

2 2 2 2
𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶
𝛿𝐶 = √( 𝛿𝐹) + ( 𝛿𝜌) + ( 𝛿𝑉) + ( 𝛿𝐴)
𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝜌 𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝐴

2 2 2 2
1 −𝐹 −2𝐹 −𝐹
𝛿𝐶 = √( 𝛿𝐹) + ( 𝛿𝜌) + ( 𝛿𝑉) + ( 𝛿𝐴)
. 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝑉 3 𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴2

Error in theoretical coefficient of force Cf theo:

𝐹𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦
𝐶𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦 =
. 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2𝐴
2 2 2 2
𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶 𝜕𝐶
𝛿𝐶 = √( 𝛿𝐹) + ( 𝛿𝜌) + ( 𝛿𝑉) + ( 𝛿𝐴)
𝜕𝐹 𝜕𝜌 𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝐴

2 2 2 2
1 −𝐹 −2𝐹 −𝐹
√
𝛿𝐶 = ( 𝛿𝐹) + ( 𝛿𝜌) + ( 𝛿𝑉) + ( 𝛿𝐴)
. 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝑉 3 𝐴 . 5 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑉 2 𝐴2
Conclusions/Recommendations
The impinging jet was shot against different target plates and the flow velocity, Reynolds
number, experimental and theoretical coefficients of force were calculated using the time taken
to fill up 10 liters of tank. From the results, some of the results are good enough to be
categorized as successful. However, some systematic intrinsic errors caused variations in the
results and resulted in significant errors. There was a slight tendency which showed that with
increased Reynold’s number, the discrepancies were less. It is because fluid flow becomes more
viscous with higher Reynold’s number. Therefore, increasing the Reynold’s number would result
in a more accurate result and it can be achieved by increasing the flow velocity. Recording more
trials would also reduce the random error in measurements.
References
1. Lab Manual, Experiment 5: Impinging Jet, Florida Institute of Technology, College of
Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.