Physics 486

“A Treatise on the Arc Length of

Projectiles under Natural
Mechanical Influences”

written by Sir Josh Gooch, in the

year of our Lord 2019
Section I – Abstract

For centuries, the dynamics of projectiles have been studied to meet both intellectual and
pragmatic ends. From sports entertainment to sophisticated calculations in times of war, the
science of projectile motion has proven itself to be an eclectic contributor to many pursuits. This
paper seeks to add to the range of knowledge in regard to projectile motion – deriving from first
principles an equation for the arc length travelled by a projectile in terms of standard parameters,
followed by two applications of the equation in both meteorology and engineering.

Experiment I

In the first section, it will be mathematically proven that the arc length of a projectile is
equivalent to the equation

where v is the projectile’s initial velocity, θ is the angle of launch, t is the time of flight, and g is
the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. This equation will then be proven experimentally with a
controlled measurement of a projectile’s flight path.

Experiment II

The following section will study the extent to which wind speed affects the arc length of
the projectile. The section will conclude with a computational study in which the wind speed will
be estimated based upon the theoretical vs. experimental differential of the arc length of the
projectile. These values will then be compared with weather data for the time period of the study.

Experiment III

The final section of this research study will consider the effects of a linear air resistance
term on a projectile’s arc length from a mathematical and experimental perspective. First, several
projectiles will be fired in a windless environment, and their arc lengths will be measured.
Finally, these will be compared with a mathematical expression derived from first principles.
Section II – Mathematical Derivations

It is well known that projectiles exhibit a parabolic path in their flight. The horizontal and
vertical range of this parabolic trajectory can be calculated with relative ease; however, the
question of the trajectory’s actual length isn’t as clear. In order to motivate the computation of its
actual length, consider a simple parabolic trajectory in the xy plane.

Some might be tempted to approximate the curve as two right triangles as shown below
and declare the length as

This may initially seem like a roughshod approximation with the Pythagorean Theorem,
but this idea of partitioning the curve into right triangles will ultimately motivate the exact
answer that is desired. Consider if the curve were partitioned into four right triangles as shown.
Note that the right triangles have been partitioned into legs of {x1, y1} and {x2, y2} respectively.
 Though it’s a more cumbersome calculation, it is easy to see from the graph that it will
yield a more accurate answer. Similarly, for eight and sixteen right triangles, our approximation
would obtain even more accuracy for the trade-off of computational complexity.

8 triangles [4 congruent pairs]

16 triangles [8 congruent pairs]

2n triangles [n congruent pairs]

If partitioning the trajectory into more and more triangles yields a more accurate quantity
for the curve’s length, then, by induction, using infinitely many triangles such that xk and yk
become infinitely small should yield the curve’s exact length. That is to say,

This suggestive of an integration, but it doesn’t quite match the template just yet. A
practical variable of integration is needed – a physical variable that can represent the incremental
changes in k along the parabolic trajectory. A useful variable to fit this classification is time. By
clever algebraic manipulation, we can introduce a time variable into the summation. Letting k be
an infinitesimal change in t, we have
 Applying the definition of integration and differentiation to their representations inside
the infinite sum, the length travelled by a projectile from t1 to t2 is equivalent to

The implication of this equation is important. If equations of motion can be found for
both the x and y directions for a projectile, its arc length can be computed exactly. We will
consider three cases for projectile motion in which the arc length is calculated

 Case I – Classical projectile motion

 Case II – Projectile motion with wind
 Case III – Projectile motion with linear air resistance

___________________________________________________________________________
Case I – Negligible Air Resistance

Consider a projectile that is launched at an initial velocity v and angle θ. The projectile’s
horizontal and vertical displacements {x(t), y(t)} are modelled by the equations:

Differentiating the two given equations of motion with respect to time, one reaches the
relevant derivatives:

Substituting these two differential equations into our previously derived arc length
equation, one gets the arc length integral

Though this integral may initially be relegated to a numerical exercise, it can actually be
evaluated analytically. Through a series of substitutions, one can obtain a closed form solution
for the arc length travelled by a projectile from a time t. Before solving this, however, one should
define the bounds of integration to be from t1 = 0 to t2 = t. Consequently, one must then change
the variable of integration to a placeholder variable t’ to avoid confusion.

To begin solving this integral, make the following algebraic subsitutions. This step is
technically not required, but it makes the integral a lot more tenable without hundreds of v’s, g’s,
and θ’s flying about.
 Next, one should pull the constant a2 from outside of the integral. In order for this to be
done, however, the inside of the b + ct′ term must be divided by a.

This integral will become an inception of trigonometry as we introduce the substitution

Note that since the integration variable dt′ is included in this subtitution, both sides
should be differentiated so the original integral can be written in terms of a new variable ϕ.

Solving for dt′, we can back substitute it into the integral and integrate with respect to ϕ.
Note that the bounds of integration will change to generic variables ϕ1 and ϕ2.

Employing a Pythagorean trigonometric identity allows the radical to be eliminated from

the integration all together. Finally, integration by parts is applied.
 The middle integral can be easily evaluated. Furthermore, notice that the third term is a
second copy of the original integral. That means it can be eliminated and the leftover terms
divided by two in order to arrive at the antiderivative. Hence,

evaluated from ϕ1 to ϕ2. Now, back substituting in previous expressions for tan ϕ and its
Pythagorean counterpart sec ϕ, the integration returns to its original variable t.

Making a final back-substitution for the defined values of {a, b, c} the expression for the
arc length comes as

Finally, evaluating these bounds, we arrive at the desired equation for the arc length.
Note that a number of trigonometric and algebraic substitutions were made to make the equation
a bit cleaner.

This equation will be proven proven experimentally in the first section of the study.
Case II – Linear Air Resistance Term

Consider a projectile that is launched at an initial velocity v and angle θ, but is subject to
an air resistance coefficient that is proportional to v. The projectile’s equations of motion can be
modelled with the differential equations

In order to calculate arc length, however, it is sufficient that this differential equation be
decomposed into x and y components. For the sake of algebraic simplicity, let k = mg / b.

These differential equations can be easily solved via separation of variables. There
solutions, respectively, are

Since the arc length integral requires velocity terms, one can directly substitute these two
equations in and begin simplifying.

This is quite a mess right now, but substituting in more constants can make the integral a
bit more tenable.
 Making some substitutions, one derives the much cleaner expression

Evaluating this integral is an absolute nightmare, but luckily the graph of the function is
well behaved enough to employ an approximation. A sample function is plotted below.

As one can see, for t > 0, the function can approximately be represented as a trapezoid
and a rectangle. The first base of the trapezoid is simply the function evaluated at 0, or the square
root of (A – 2B + C). Meanwhile, the other base of the trapezoid is the limit of the function for
larger t. The exponential functions vanish for larger t, so it is simply the square root of C. The
height of the trapezoid is the time it takes for the exponential terms to disappear. For reasonably
small parameters, this is usually less than 1 second. Meanwhile, the remaining rectangle area is
simply the entire time of flight minus the exponential term decay time.

Hence, the arc length can be approximated as

𝒕𝒆
𝑳= (√𝑨 − 𝟐𝑩 + 𝑪 + √𝑪) + √𝑪(𝒕 − 𝒕𝒆 )
𝟐

This approximation will be employed to compare with the actual data received from the
respective section of the study.
 Experiment I – Negligible Air Resistance

Procedure

Inside an indoor, room-temperature chamber, a physicist fired a preselected cylindrical

projectile at an array of angles and velocities from an “Adventure Awaits!” wooden crossbow.
This sampling of crossbow shots were recorded by a Sony HXR-MC2500 video camera.

This camera recorded the

projectile’s trajectory.

This scale factor was an

established length on the
footage for computational
purposes.

The footage obtained from the camera was then projected onto a frame-grabbing
software, where a square pixel overlay was placed over the footage. The projectile’s geometric
arc was then tracked frame-by-frame, where the number of pixels it travelled was meticulously
counted. Using a scale factor obtained from the pixel overlay on the footage, the arc length of the
projectile was computed according to the equation

𝐿 = Number of pixels travelled by projectile′ s COM × Scale Factor

The initial parameters of each shot were then plugged into a MATLAB program (next
page) to compute the theoretical arc length of the projectile. The experimental and theoretical
values were then compared in order to verify the accuracy of the equation from the derivations
section.

A total of 22 shots were recorded in order to verify beyond a reasonable doubt the
equation was correct. A percent error histogram was then made to display the results of the 22
shots.
Computation

% This simple program will compute the arc length L of a projectile given
% some intial parameters {v, theta, t}.

v = input('Enter the initial velocity of the projectile, in m/s: ');

theta = input('Enter the angle at which the projectile was fired at, in
degrees: ');
t = input('Enter the time interval over which the projectile flies, in
seconds: ')
theta1 = theta * (3.1415926/180); % Conversion from radians to degrees.
g = -9.81;
parameters = [v, theta];

% This section computes the arc length. The equation is quite involved so
% it will be partitioned into several variables.

O = (v * cos(theta1))^2 / (2 * g);
A1 = v * sin(theta1) + (g * t);
A2 = v * cos(theta1);
S = v.^2 + (2*v*g*t*sin(theta1)) + (g*t).^2;
S1 = sqrt(S);
B = v * cos(theta1);
E = (1 + sin(theta1));
D = sec(theta1) * tan(theta1);

% Finally, the actual computation of the arc length.

L = (B^2) / (-2*g) * ((2*D) + log(abs((1+sin(theta1))/(1-sin(theta1)))));

L2 = O * ((A1*S1)/(A2)^2+log((A1+S1)/A2)-(sec(theta1)*tan(theta1))-
log(sec(theta1)+tan(theta1)));
disp('The extrapolated/interpolated arc length is: ')
disp (L2)
disp('One whole arc length would theoretically be: ')
disp(L)

T = 0:0.001:ceil((2*v*sin(theta1))/-g);
X = v * cos(theta1) * T;
Y = v * sin(theta1) * T + (0.5 * g * T.^2);
hold on
t1 = 0:0.001:t;
X1 = v * cos(theta1) * t1;
Y1 = v * sin(theta1) * t1 + (0.5*g*t1.^2);
plot(X,Y,'bl');
plot(X1,Y1,'rd');
xlabel('x (m)');
ylabel('y (m)');
ylim([0,(1.5*((v*sin(theta1))^2/(2*-g)))]);
title(['Projectile Motion for v = ' num2str(v) [ ' m/s and \theta = '
num2str(theta)] ' degrees']);
legend(['Complete Arc Length = ' num2str(L) ''],['Measured Arc Length = '
num2str(L2) '']);
Results

Here are a few sample data points are given below.

Shot # Velocity (m/s) Angle Pixel Count Scale Factor Measured L Calculated L % error
1 4.0 48 13.0 0.15 2.025 1.905 6.32
2 4.2 45 14.0 0.15 2.100 2.064 1.76
3 4.4 51 15.0 0.15 2.250 2.345 4.05
4 4.9 30 15.7 0.15 2.325 2.216 4.92
5 5.2 40 20.0 0.15 3.000 3.063 2.04

A sample plotting from MATLAB is given below for Shot #5. The legend gives both the
truncated arc length (red) and complete arc theoretical length (blue). In this case, they are
approximately the same because the time parameter was equivalent to the projectile’s total time
of flight.
 Shown below is a frequency table for the percent errors obtained from the 22 shots.

With a mean percent error 5.05% and a standard deviation of 2.13%, it can be seen that
the formula presented in the Theory section is experimentally verified. The slight deviation from
the theoretical value can easily be explained by the following two conditions.

(1) Neglected air resistance

(2) Limited precision in counting the number of pixels travelled by the projectile
(3) Loss of mechanical energy to rotation and friction
Experiment 2 – Negligible Air Resistance with Wind [Computational]

Procedure

In the following experiment, the projectiles were exposed to a uniform crosswind parallel
to the x-axis. Using the measured arc lengths, a MATLAB program was used to calculate the
wind speed acting on the projectile. Several plots of the projectile’s natural trajectory against its
wind-driven trajectory are given. The values obtained in the previous experiment were used for
convenience.

Computation

clear

% This simple program will compute the wind speed V given a projectile arc
% length, intiial velocity, and angle of launch.

L = input('Input the measured arc length, in meters: ');

v = input('Input the initial velocity of the projectile, in m/s: ');
theta = input('Input the angle of launch: ');
t = input('Input the time of flight: ');
theta1 = theta * (3.14159/180);
g = -9.81;
D = sec(theta1) * tan(theta1);
N = 3;

syms X
eqn = ((X^2)/-2*g) * ((2*D) + log(abs((1+sin(theta1))/(1-sin(theta1))))) ==
L;
windspeed1 = solve(eqn,X);
windspeed1a =(windspeed1);
windspeed2=round((((windspeed1)-(v*cos(theta1)))));
disp(windspeed2);

T = 0:0.001:t;
X = (v * cos(theta1)-max(windspeed2)) * T;
Y = (v*sin(theta1) * T + (0.5 * g * T.^2));
hold on
t1 = 0:0.001:t;
X1 = v * cos(theta1) * t1;
Y1 = v * sin(theta1) * t1 + (0.5*g*t1.^2);
plot(X,Y,'bl');
plot(X1,Y1,'rd');
xlabel('x (m)');
ylabel('y (m)');
ylim([0,(3.5*((v*sin(theta1))^2/(2*-g)))]);
title(['Wind-driven projectile Motion for v = ' num2str(v) [ ' m/s and \theta
= ' num2str(theta)] ' degrees']);
legend(['Upwind (Blue)']);
Results

Some plots are given below. The red curve represents the projectile’s natural arc length
while the blue curve represents it exposed to the wind.

No Wind = 1.9 m

Wind = 3.0 m

Computed Wind Speed ≈ 2.0 m/s

No Wind = 3.1 m

Wind = 5.0 m

Computed Wind Speed ≈ 3.12 m/s

Experiment 3 – Linear Air Resistance

Procedure

The experimental setup from the first study was recreated in a windless, outdoor,
environment. Several arrows were fired from the “Adventure Awaits!” crossbow, and their
trajectories were recorded and analyzed according to the process outlined in Experiment 1. Then,
this process was repeated for the arrows with a mass of ≈ 1.0 g added onto them. Finally, several
foam bullets were fired from a Nerf N-Strike StratoBow.

Following these recordings, an experimental k value was determined for each object used,
and then a theoretical arc length was calculated according to all of the initial parameters. Finally,
this calculated value for arc length was compared with the experimental value.

Computation

clear

v = input('Input the initial velocity, in m/s: ');

theta = input('Input the angle of launch, in degrees: ');
theta1 = theta*(3.1415/180);
k = input('Input the characteristic k value for the object: ');
L1 = input('Input the measured arc length: ');
g = -9.81
T = (-2*v*sin(theta1))/g;
A = v^2 + 2*v*k*sin(theta1) + k^2;
B = (v*k*sin(theta1)+k^2);
C = k^2;
dt = 0.001;
t=0:dt:2*(2*v*sin(theta1))/-g;
L = (.35*T)*(sqrt(A - 2*B + C)+sqrt(C));
error=abs(L-L1)/max(L,L1) * 100;
VX = zeros(length(t),1);
VY = zeros(length(t),1);
VX(1) = v*cos(theta1);
VY(1) = v*sin(theta1);
X = zeros(length(t),1);
Y = zeros(length(t),1);
X(1) = 0;
Y(1) = 0;
for i=1:length(t)-1
VX(i+1) = VX(i) + g*((VX(i)/k))*dt;
VY(i+1) = VY(i) + g*(1+(VY(i)/k))*dt;
X(i+1) = X(i) + VX(i)*dt;
Y(i+1) = Y(i) + VY(i)*dt;
end
plot(X,Y, 'bl');
xlabel('x (m)')
ylabel('y (m)')
ylim([0,(1.5*(v*sin(theta1))^2/(2*9.81))]);
title('Projectile Motion with Linear Air Resistance')
legend(['Approximated L = ' num2str(L) ' m' newline 'Measured L = '
num2str(L1) 'm' newline 'Percent Error = ' num2str(error)]);
Results

In the two tables below are a sample of arrows fired from the “Adventure Awaits!”
crossbow. Notice that as velocity increases, the experimental vs theoretical accuracy generally
drops. This is expected because linear air resistance is dominated by quadratic air resistance at
larger and larger velocites.

Shot # v (m/s) θ k L (meas) L (calc) % error

1 10.5 44 14.50 12.40 13.01 5.00
2 10.5 47 14.50 13.10 13.70 5.00
3 15.0 28 14.50 20.70 18.44 19.40
4 10.5 32 14.50 11.90 9.93 16.60
5 12.0 36 14.50 14.80 13.34 9.88
6 12.5 36 14.50 16.00 14.16 11.53
7 15.0 30 14.50 20.73 15.79 23.73
8 7.0 20 14.50 4.00 3.67 8.17
9 9.0 25 14.50 6.6 6.3779 3.36

The next table contains a sample of data are from the Nerf bullets. Notice the average
percent error is considerably smaller. Some sample graphs are given.

Shot # v (m/s) θ k L (meas) L (calc) % error

1 6.5 40 8.5 4.50 4.47 1.06
2 7 32 8.5 4.37 4.10 6.12
3 8 38 8.5 6.11 5.80 5.09
4 8 36 8.5 5.80 5.53 4.55
Section IV – Conclusions

Experiment 1

The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated that the equation that was derived for a
projectile’s arc length is correct. Though the percent error averaged to approximately five
percent, it can easily be accounted for when considering neglected air resistance and loss of
mechanical energy to rotation. In addition to those difficulties, a more precise method of
measuring the arc length likely would have yielded improved percent errors. This equation could
prove highly practical in situations where there is relatively little humidity, wind, or other
environmental factors that could hinder a projectile’s motion.

Experiment 2

The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that it is possible to calculate the wind speed
based on information about the projectile’s natural arc length. By entering in some initial
parameters into a MATLAB program, one is able to obtain an approximate value for the wind
speed acting upon a projectile. This could have numerous applications in meteorology or military
science, where wind plays a pivotal role in many calculations or physical problems.

Experiment 3

The results of Experiment 3 showed that a projectile’s arc length could be reasonably
approximated, within a 10 percent error, provided the addition of a linear air resistance term in
their equations of motion. However, as the velocities grew above roughly 12 m/s, the
approximation began to deviate from the experimental values for arc length. This was expected
as air resistance for higher velocities is dominated by a quadratic, rather than linear term. The
equation could also be used to experimentally determine an object’s terminal velocity (k) value,
which could find ample application in engineering problems.