Impact of A Water Jet

Group 1
Brandt Daniels
Brian Humphrey
Mark Matta
Brennan Genusa
10/10/17
ENME 3716 Fluid Mechanics Laboratory
Section 002
The University of New Orleans

1
OBJECTIVES

The objective of this experiment is to compute the force produced on an object by a jet of
water by computing the momentum change of the fluid as it strikes the object, and to compare the
computed force to the experimentally measured force. Two objects will be used for comparison: a
flat circular disk, and a hemispherical cup.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

The equipment used in this experiment was as follows:

Stop watch
Jet Impact Apparatus
Techquipment hydraulic bench
Nalgene tank
Bucket
Flat plate
Hemispherical cup
Scale
Jockey weight

The zero position of the mass was located above the center point of the water jet for the
experiment. Prior to the testing of the experiment, lever arm was balanced. Once the water jet
was turned on, an applied force was placed on the object being tested (cup or plate), and a
counterweight was moved away from the zero position until the lever arm was once again
balanced. As soon as the beam was level the valve draining water out of water collecting tank
was closed and a reading of the time required to collect 30 liters of water in the tank was
recorded. After this step, the maximum position of the jockey weight was divided into eight (8)
equal sections and the process was repeated for each move of distance. The water pressure was
changed for each move of the weights distance to level the beam. The process of closing the
valve and recording the time to reach 30 liters was repeated for each distance once the beam was
level. The entire process was completed for both the flat plate and cup, with eight (8) trials being
done on each.

THEORY

Consider a vane, symmetrical about the x-axis, as shown in the Figure 1. A jet of fluid
flowing at a given mass flow rate, w (kg/s), along the x-axis with a velocity, 1 (m/s), strikes the
vane and is deflected by it through an angle , so that the fluid leaves the vane with the velocity
2 (m/s), inclined at an angle , to the x-axis. To compute the force produced by the fluid, a control
volume analysis is employed. A control volume analysis uses the integral form of the conservation
laws, namely conservation of mass and momentum. Conservation of momentum is also known as
Newtons second law. The conservation of mass and momentum are written in integral form,
respectively, as:

2
 Figure 1 Jet of water impacting a cone

) = 0
+ ( conservation of mass (1)

+
+ = (
) conservation of momentum(2)

where is the total volume of the control volume (shown by the shaded area in Figure 1), S is the
bounding surface of the control volume (shown by the dashed line in Figure 1), and is a unit
vector that is everywhere perpendicular to the control surface AND points outward from the
control volume.
is the sum of the surface forces and
is the sum of the body forces. The
definitions for an arbitrary control volume are shown in Figure 2.

3
 Figure 2 Definitions for control volume analysis

Each term in equations (1) and (2) has a physical interpretation. First, the volume integrals
represent the total mass and momentum within the control volume at any instant, and the time
derivatives of those integrals represent the time rate of change of mass and momentum within the
control volume at any instant. The surface integrals represent the net outflow of mass and
momentum from the control volume across the bounding surfaces of the control volume.
In addition to conservation of mass and conservation of momentum, we must employ
Bernoullis equation in this analysis. Bernoullis equation can be thought of as conservation of
energy for an incompressible flow when friction is negligible. It basically states that the total
energy between two points is constant. Bernoullis equation is written as:

1 12 2 12
+ + 1 = + + 2 (3)
2 2

Fortunately for our analysis, we do not have to apply the above equations directly. We can
use the physical interpretation of those equations to derive the needed formulas for computing the
forces produced by the jet on the objects. For a steady-state process, the mass and momentum
within the control volume do not vary with time, so the terms involving the time derivatives of the
volume integrals are zero. For example, the conservation of mass equation for a steady state
process reduces to:

) = 0
( (4)

Physically, this equation says that if we integrate (sum) the mass flowing out of the control
volume across each differential area dS, over the entire bounding surface, S, of the control volume
then the net outflow of mass from the control volume is zero. More simply stated, the conservation
of mass for a steady state process says that the fluid mass entering the control volume at one
location must exit the control volume at some other location so that the total fluid mass within the
control volume remains constant at all times. In Figure 1, the mass per unit time, w, entering the
control volume at section 1 is equal to that leaving the control volume at section 2. Additionally,
the fluid entering the control volume at section 1 has a certain momentum due to its velocity. The
rate of momentum entering at section 1 is the mass flow rate at that location multiplied by the
velocity at that location, i.e., 1 . This momentum rate is in the x-direction. The rate of

4
momentum leaving at section 2 is 2 and is directed at an angle . The x-component is given by
w2 cos. Therefore, the change in the x-component of momentum between points 1 and 2 is given
by

2 1 (change in x-momentum between 1 and 2) (5)

According to Newtons second law, the change in the x-component of momentum is equal to the
sum of the forces acting on the control volume in the x-direction. The only force acting on the
control volume is due to the cone and acts in the negative x-direction (see Figure 1). Therefore,

= 2 1 (6)

This is the force the cone exerts on the control volume (fluid). By Newtons third law, an equal
and opposite force is exerted by the fluid on the cone. We can simplify the above equation further
by assuming that changes in pressure and elevation between points 1 and 2 are negligible. The first
assumption is justified since the jet is open to the atmosphere, so everything is at atmospheric
pressure. The second assumption is reasonable for the small distances we are considering in this
lab exercise. If we make these two assumptions, Bernoullis equation, (3), says that u1 = u2, so that
equation (6) can be written as:

= 1 ( 1) (7)

Note that this produces a negative number because the force acting on the control volume acts in
the negative x-direction. Obviously then, the force exerted by the control volume on the cone is
equal and opposite and is given by:

= 1 (1 cos ) (8)

In the above equation, w is the mass flow rate of the incoming jet (kg/s or slug/s), 1 is the velocity
of the incoming jet (m/s or ft./s), and is the angle the fluid is turned through. Note that the force
produced depends only on the incoming properties of the jet (section 1) and the turning angle, .
Now, lets consider the force produced on a flat plate and a hemispherical cup. The flow pattern
across each is sketched in Figure 3. It is obvious that the flat plate turns the flow through 90o, and
the hemispherical cup turns the flow through 180o. So, according to equation (8),

( ) = 1 (9)

() = 21 (10)

It is easily seen that force produced on the flat plate is equal to the rate of momentum, w1 ,
delivered by the nozzle and the force on the hemispherical cup is twice that. This makes sense
physically, since the turning angle for the cup is twice that of the flat plate.

5
 Figure 3 Flow patterns across flat plate and hemi-spherical cup

Experimental Measurements

Now that we know how to compute the forces from the principles of fluid mechanics, our
next objective is to measure the forces experimentally so that we can compare the computations to
the experimentally measured forces.
A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 4. The lever arm is attached to a
spring. The zero position is at the centerline of the nozzle. The lever arm is initially adjusted by
the setting the force in the spring until the lever arm is in a level position. After the jet is turned
on, the lever arm will rotate upward. The mass is then moved away from its zero position enough
so that the lever arm becomes level again. In order to compute the force of the nozzle on the cup
or plate, we must sum moments about the pivot point, A. Referring to Figure 4, summing moments
about A gives:

( + ) = 0 (11)

where k is the spring constant, and z is the displacement of the spring from its zero position (note
we do not need to know the actual value of z since it drops out of the final equation. However,
when the jet is off, and the mass is in the zero position, the moments about A can be written as:

= 0 (12)

6
 Figure 4 Schematic of experimental setup

Substituting this relation into (11) and solving for F gives:

= (13)

Note that the force can be computed by knowing the mass of the weight, m, the distance, L, of the
nozzle centerline from the pivot point, and the distance, y, the mass must be displaced from its
zero position to level the lever arm when the nozzle is turned on. The velocity of the jet as it strikes
the cup/plate is u1. However, the velocity of the jet leaving the nozzle is uo, and is not equal to u1
because the jet travels a distance h upwards, and gravity acts on the jet to slow it down. If we use
Bernoullis equation, we can find the relationship between u0 and u1. This relationship is written
as:

1 = 2 2gh (14)

The velocity of the fluid as it leaves the nozzle, uo, is computed by knowing the measured flow
rate, the density of the water, and the diameter of the nozzle, i.e.

= (15)

7
 Table 1 Experimental constants

Constant Value

Diameter of the nozzle, D 10 mm

Cross-sectional area of the nozzle, A 78.5 mm2

Mass of the jockey weight, m 0.600 kg

Distance from center of the nozzle to pivot of lever, L 0.150 m

Height of vane above the tip of the nozzle, h 0.035 m

Density of water, 1000 kg/m3

Atmospheric Pressure, Patm (mbar) 1020.5 mbar

Room Temperature, () 24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This experiment was conducted in order to look at the force of a jet of water on two separate
surfaces, a flat plate and a hemispherical cup. The experimental constants were given in table 1
from the lab manual, and the room temperature and atmospheric pressure taken during the
experiment was added to the table. All acquired data was collected from performing the experiment
and through calculations. Table 2 provides all of the data gathered during the first half of the
experiment with the flat plate. The jockey weight was first placed at 137 mm, which was found to
be the location that leveled the beam. With each trail, the weight was moved 17 mm closer to the
centerline, and the elapsed time it took to fill the collection tank with 30 liters of water was
recorded for each trail. The volumetric flowrate was calculated for each trial using the amount of
water collected and the elapsed time it took to collect the water. From the data recorded, the time
it took to fill the collection tank with 30 liters of water increased with each trail as the jockey
weight was moved closer to the center of the beam. The time increased due to the flowrate being
decreased with each trial. Decreasing the flowrate translated to a lower force acting on the plate,
which corresponds with the amount of time to collect water in the tank.

8
 Table 2 Experimental Data for Flat Plate
Jockey Weight Water Elapsed time, Volumetric
Trial # Position, y (mm) Collected (L) t (s) Flowrate, Qfp (m3/s)
1 137 30 45.63 6.57E-04
2 120 30 49.46 6.07E-04
3 103 30 52.2 5.75E-04
4 86 30 58.14 5.16E-04
5 68 30 64.71 4.64E-04
6 51 30 73.29 4.09E-04
7 34 30 84.38 3.56E-04
8 17 30 106.89 2.81E-04

Table 3 provides all of the data gathered during the second half of the experiment with the
hemispherical cup. The jockey weight for the hemispherical cup portion of the experiment was
first placed 240 mm from the centerline of the beam. With each trail, the weight was moved 30
mm closer to the centerline, and the elapsed time it took to fill the collection tank with 30 liters of
water was recorded.

Table 3 Experimental Data for Hemispherical Cup

Jockey Weight Position, y Water Elapsed time, Volumetric Flowrate,
Trial # (mm) Collected (L) t (s) Qhc (m3/s)
1 240 30 48.11 6.24E-04
2 210 30 50.75 5.91E-04
3 180 30 51.25 5.85E-04
4 150 30 55.78 5.38E-04
5 120 30 64.79 4.63E-04
6 90 30 71.26 4.21E-04
7 60 30 83.20 3.61E-04
8 30 30 105.18 2.85E-04

The calculation part of this experiment was used to find the mass flow rate of both the flat
plate and hemispherical cup using the raw data collected. Using the mass flow rate, the initial and
final velocities were also calculated for each trail. The computed force is found by multiplying the
mass flow rate by the velocity of the jet as it hits the plate or cup using equation (9). The measured
force was found using equation (13), which is the summing of moments. The handwritten sample
calculations can be found attached to the lab report. As the jockey weight was moved closer to the
center of the beam with each trail, the mass flow rate, fluid velocity, and force of the jet decreased.
As the weight was moved a smaller force was therefore needed to counter the moment arm. The
percent difference of the two forces was also computed and began to increase as the force on the
flat plate decreased. Table 4 contains the calculated data for the flat plate.

9
 Table 4 Calculated Data for Flat Plate
w u0 u1 wu1 Fcomputed Fmeasured %
Trail # y (m) (kg/s) (m/s) (m/s) (N) (N) (N) Diff
1 0.137 0.656 8.375 8.334 5.464 5.464 5.376 1.61
2 0.120 0.605 7.727 7.682 4.647 4.647 4.709 1.34
3 0.103 0.573 7.321 7.274 4.169 4.169 4.042 3.05
4 0.086 0.515 6.573 6.521 3.355 3.355 3.375 0.58
5 0.068 0.462 5.906 5.847 2.703 2.703 2.668 1.29
6 0.051 0.408 5.214 5.148 2.101 2.101 2.001 4.77
7 0.034 0.355 4.529 4.453 1.579 1.579 1.334 15.49
8 0.017 0.280 3.575 3.478 0.973 0.973 0.667 31.47

Table 5 contains the calculated data for the hemispherical cup. For the hemispherical cup,
the computed force is twice the rate of delivery of momentum. This is different from the flat plate
because the angle of change once the jet hits the cup is 180 degrees and for the flat plat the water
hit and dispersed 90 degrees of the plate. The angle for the cup is twice as large meaning there will
be a linear momentum that is also twice as large. Newtons second law is also taken into account
because the force from the cup to the jet will also be twice as large. By Newtons third law an
equal and opposite reaction of the force is twice as large for the cup. The percent difference
gradually increased as the forces decreased. The lowest percentage was 4.14%, and the highest
difference was 41.50%.

Table 5 Calculated Data for Hemispherical Cup

w u0 u1 wu1 Fcomputed Fmeasured %
Trail # y (m) (kg/s) (m/s) (m/s) (N) (N) (N) Diff
1 0.240 0.622 7.94 7.90 4.913 9.825 9.418 4.15
2 0.210 0.589 7.53 7.48 4.412 8.824 8.240 6.61
3 0.180 0.584 7.46 7.41 4.326 8.652 7.063 18.36
4 0.150 0.536 6.85 6.80 3.648 7.295 5.886 19.32
5 0.120 0.462 5.90 5.84 2.697 5.393 4.709 12.69
6 0.090 0.420 5.36 5.30 2.224 4.449 3.532 20.62
7 0.060 0.360 4.59 4.52 1.625 3.249 2.354 27.54
8 0.030 0.284 3.63 3.54 1.006 2.012 1.177 41.50

Figure 5 is a plot graph used to look at the force on each object compared to the rate of
delivery of momentum (wu1 ). From the figure it can be visually interpreted that the force on the
hemispherical cup is twice that of the force on the flat plate. The slopes of the two trials should be
linear; however due factors such as friction, the slopes are slightly less than their ideal values.
There are two outliers from trail 2 and 4 of the flat plate part of the experiment.

10
 6.000

y = 1.0532x - 0.2686
R = 0.9968 y = 0.4908x + 0.506
R = 0.9807
5.000

4.000
Measured Force, Fmeas (N)

3.000

2.000

1.000 Flat Plate

Hemispherical
Cup
0.000
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000
Rate of Momentum, wu1 (N)
Figure 5 Measured Exerted Force vs. Rate of Delivery of Momentum

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

An uncertainty analysis was performed on the measured and calculated data from the
experiment. The results are shown below in Table 6.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the experiment supported that the hemispherical cup had two times the
force than that of the flat plate. Our data was also consistent because as the flow rate became
smaller, the forces also began to decrease. The data collected was fairly accurate when it came to
the percent difference from the computed force and the measured force. As the force decreased the
percent difference increased, which could have been caused by human error. The average percent
difference for the flat plate was 7.45%, while the average percent difference for the hemispherical
cup was 18.85%. The human error most likely occurred from incorrectly measuring the amount of
water in the collection tank. This error could have been fixed by having multiple people tell the
person timing exactly when the tank filled up with 30 liters of water.

11
 The slopes from the plotted points in figure 5 should be linear for each trial, but a few
outliers were present. The measured force for each trial should be smaller than the computed force
and from the experiment every trial was consistent; except for trail 2 and 4 from the flat plate.
These outliers could be a result of human error from not measuring the water collected properly or
from an inconsistent flow of water coming out of the nozzle.

QUESTIONS

1. What suggestions would you have for improving the apparatus?

The apparatus can be improved by having a more accurate way of leveling the beam. The
beam was hard to level with the level provided due to an inconsistent flow of water
hitting the plate or cup. The apparatus can also be improved by taking more accurate
readings when measuring the mass flow rate to increase the precision of the data.

2. What would be the effect on the result of the following systematic errors of
measurement?

a. The jockey weight in error by 0.001kg.

A jockey weight in error by +/- 0.001 kg affects only the Fmeasured value of both the plate
and the hemispherical cup by +/- 0.167%.

b. The distance from the center of the vane to the pivot of the lever in error by
1mm.

An error in the distance from the center of the vane to the pivot of the lever of +/- 1 mm
results in an error of Fmeasured of both the pate and the hemispherical cup by +/- 0.667%.

c. The diameter of the water jet emerging from the nozzle 0.1mm different from
the nozzle diameter.

An error of +/- 0.1 mm in the nozzle diameter results in an error of +/- 2.01% in A, uo, u1,
wu1, and Fcomputed values.

12
3. It has been assumed that the velocity in the jet is uniform over the entire-section.
How is the momentum in the jet affected if this is not so? Consider for example, a jet
of cross-sectional area, A, in which the velocity is 1.5 * uo over one half the area of
the jet and 0.5 * uo over the other half. The discharge is the same as if the velocity
were u over the whole, namely,

= (16)

Show that the rate of momentum in the jet is 1.25 * W* uo, i.e. 25% greater than if
the velocity were uniform over the cross-section.

Momentum = 0 2

A A
= ( 2 )(.50 )2 + ( 2 )(1.50 )2

1 9
= 2 0 2 [4 + 4]

10
= 0 2
8

=1.250

4. What would be the effect on the calculated force on the flat plate, if the jet were
assumed to leave the plate not absolutely horizontally, but inclined at an angle of 10
degrees?

The original force was 5.464 N, but with the incline of 10 degrees the force increased to 6.416
N.

F = W ( ) (9)

F = (.656 kg/s)( 8.334 m/s)(1-cos(90+10))

F = 6.416 N

13
REFERENCES

[1] White, F., 2011, Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.

14