Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Module: Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 2, MM2TF2

Lab title: Investigation into the drag coefficient of 2-D prisms
Name: Paige Linden
Student ID: 4246802
Date of lab: 23/02/2018
Date report due: 09/03/2018

Section Marks available for section Marks awarded

Summary 10
Weighing experiment analysis 20
Wake velocity profile analysis 20
Discussion 30
Conclusions 10
Reporting layout and presentation 10
Total 100

Additional feedback from marker

1
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Summary
The experiments were conducted to understand how to measure the drag coefficient of an object and how the shape
of an object affects the drag coefficient. The aims of this experiment will be determined by undertaking experiments
using a wind tunnel. The wind tunnel will be used measure the drag coefficient using the weighing method and to
measure the wake behind the object. Three different shapes will be used, a circular cylinder, triangular prism and
airfoil. The drag coefficient values will be compared to their theoretical values to draw conclusions.

In the weighing experiment the bodies were clamped into the main unit situated in the wind tunnel, where they were
subject to air flow of variable velocities. Two weights, 100g and 10g, were used to balance the force, creating a
moment which counteracts the drag. The drag force was measured and plotted against the dynamic head in order to
determine the drag coefficient for each object at different velocity flows. The results of this experiment showed that
The airfoil had the smallest drag coefficient of 0.046 and the triangular prism had the largest drag coefficient of 1.897.
The theoretical values for the drag coefficient from the cylinder, triangular prism and airfoil were 1.2,2.0 and 0.04
respectively. Comparing the experimental values to the theoretical values gives percentages differences of 14.1%,
6.7% and 15%. This highlights that the values are relatively close, however there were slight differences which can be
explained by random and systematic errors. Despite the differences in values the experimental values follow the same
order as the theoretical values. In addition, the velocities and Reynolds numbers were calculated for each shape to
determine any correlation between the two values. The results showed that the airfoil had the largest value of
Reynolds number and the smallest value for the drag coefficient.

In the second experiment, the pitot tube was moved across in increments of 2mm and readings were taken from the
open tube and closed manometer. The difference between the values was converted to pascals and used in the
calculation of dynamic head and in turn velocity. The velocity was plotted against the pitot tube position in order to
produce a velocity wake profile. The shape with the largest width and greatest dip was the triangular prism. The airfoil
had the smallest width and the lowest dip. By combining both of the experiment it can be noted that there is
appositive relationship between the velocity wake profiles and drag coefficient of each prism.
The differences in the values are due to several sources of error during the experiments and calculations, these
include parallax error, misalignment, unstable apparatus, and assumptions during the calculations. In order to make
the experiment more accurate it would be recommended that repeat readings were taken and using equipment of
higher resolution.

2
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

1. Introduction
Drag is something that affects everyday life. In any situation where a body and the flow are moving at
different velocities, the flow will exert a force on the body. This force has huge significance in many
applications, particularly in air travel or car design. The drag behind a car for example will limit the maximum
velocity achievable, and the drag will have a significant influence on the fuel consumption of an airplane. It
can also cause tragedies such as the Tacoma narrows bridge disaster if it is not accounted for correctly1.
There are several techniques that can be used to measure the drag behind an object. Two of the easiest are
the “weighing” method and the “wake defect” method.
In the experiments reported here three prisms are investigated: a circular prism (a cylinder) a triangular
prism and an airfoil cross section. The dimensions are such that the frontal area of each is the same and this
will allow the comparison of the drag magnitudes and drag coefficients.

Thickness, t
W
φ

Chord, c
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1: The prisms investigated and the characteristic dimensions used for calculations. (a) Cylinder, (b)
triangular prism2, (c) airfoil.

2. Aims and objectives

The aim of the experiment is to obtain the drag coefficients for a circular and a triangular prism for a range
of flowrates and to investigate the wake velocity profile in each case. The aim is achieved through the
following objectives:
• Using the weighing method, obtain the drag coefficient for each cylinder and compare to published
data
• Obtain the wake velocity profile for each cylinder and use this to discuss the difference in measured
drag coefficient
• Investigate the extent to which drag coefficient is Reynolds number dependent for these cylinders

3. Background Theory
As air flows past a body, two forces are created:
1. Skin friction created by the shear forces of a moving fluid passing over the surface of the body. This
force is more dominant on shapes that are usually referred to as 'aerodynamic'. Examples include
long thin plates where the ratio between length and its facial dimensions are large. (i.e. long aerofoils
and thin plates).
2. The pressure difference between the inlet stream of air and the wake region gives rise to a second
force. This pressure difference depends on the dimensions of the body and can be known as either
the pressure drag, form drag or the profile drag, of the body. This type of force is more dominant on
shapes that are not usually referred to as 'aerodynamic' and are short with a large frontal area.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridges: accessed 9/9/2013
2
In this orientation, a triangular prism of this type behaves very much like a flat plate

3
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Both these types of drag are combined to give the total drag on the body arising as a consequence of it
moving through a fluid medium (this is often referred to as parasitic drag, noting that parasitic drag does not
include induced drag). If the body is not symmetrical along its horizontal axis, or if it is not aligned to the
flow then a net force will be present in the vertical direction. This is referred to as the lift force and
theoretically should not be present in the results from this lab because both shapes used were symmetrical
and should have been aligned to the flow.
The cylinder is rotationally symmetric and cannot be misaligned. The alignment of the other prism can be
assessed by plotting the velocity profile in the wake region and examining symmetry about the centreline.
Assuming symmetry and perfect alignment, a typical velocity profile is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram identifying wake key features parameters4.

3.1. Boundary layer effects

Figure 2 does not show the boundary layer that forms at the walls of the wind tunnel (indicated by the upper
and lower bold boundary lines). In the boundary layer regions, the velocity decreases from the core velocity
as a consequence of frictional shear at the walls. The no-slip condition dictates that the velocity at the walls
is zero.
3.2. Blockage ratio
As the flow moves past the object being investigated it is squeezed into a smaller flow cross sectional area
than the immediate upstream cross-sectional area and so will accelerate somewhat. For a low blockage
ratio (small body, large flow cross section) the effect of blockage ratio is not too significant. For a larger
blockage ratio (such as in this experiment) the blockage ratio will have an effect on the results obtained and
data may not be exactly comparable to published data which is typically obtained from low blockage ratio
experiments.

3.3. The Weighing technique

Using a moment balance the force needed to counteract the drag can be directly obtained by adjusting the
balancing force until equilibrium is reached. Equating moments yields the Drag force 𝐷. This is illustrated
schematically in Figure 3.

4
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

flow

Drag force
Balancing force Pivot point

Figure 3: Schematic diagram illustrating moment balance

The drag force is related to the mean velocity of the flow (𝑈), the density of the air at room temperature(𝜌)
and the frontal area of the prism (𝐴), by the relationship shown in equation 1.
𝐷/𝐴
𝐶𝐷 = 1 2
(1)
2𝜌𝑈

The dynamic pressure (12𝜌𝑈 2 ) can be obtained by measuring the pressure difference between the total
pressure and the static pressure at the plane of the cylinder, so that equation 1 can be rewritten as;
𝐷/𝐴 = 𝐶𝐷 (𝑃𝑇 − 𝑝𝑠 ) (2)
If 3drag coefficient does not change with velocity, then a plot of the Drag force per unit area (D/A) against
the dynamic pressure (12𝜌𝑈 2 )will produce a straight line with a gradient of 𝐶𝐷 .

3.4. Wake traverse

Using a pitot tube a wake traverse can be conducted. A pitot tube gives total pressure and at the location of
the traverse the static pressure will be the same as atmospheric pressure. Consequently, the local dynamic
pressure can be obtained.
1
𝑝𝑇 − 𝑝𝑠 = 𝑝𝑑 = 2𝜌𝑢 2
1
∴ 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝑝𝑎 = 2𝜌𝑢 2
3.5. Multitude manometer
With the multitude manometer gauge pressures (relative to atmospheric) are obtained and so:
1
𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑔(ℎ𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑡 − ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 ) = 2𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑢 2 (3)
Where u is the velocity at the pitot tube.

4. Apparatus and Method

Information about the apparatus and method used are given in the Lab Notes4. For the weighing
experiment, it was difficult to identify the exact location of balance. To make the experiment more
consistent, a pen mark was used to identify the location of balance accurately and consistently each time.

3
This is only true if drag coefficient does not vary with Reynolds number – usually drag coefficient is a function of Reynolds
number.
4
Moodle.nottingham.ac.uk: accessed 28/10/2013

5
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Results
The important dimensions of the prisms and the working section of the wind tunnel are given in Table 1.

Table 1: A list of important dimensions that are used in this report

Diameter of cylinder ϕ 12.5 mm
Length of prisms (all) L 48 mm
Width of triangular prism W 12.5 mm
Half-width of working section H 50 mm
Blockage ratio ϕ W 0.125 or 12.5%
or
2H 2H

Results from weighing experiment

In order to plot the graph, Drag Force/area over Dynamic head both these values have to be calculated. To determine
the dynamic, head the difference between PT and Ps must be calculated. The readings were taken in mm H2O and
therefore needed to be converted into Pascal’s using the conversion 1mm =9.81mm. Following this the dynamic head
can be found by subtracting Ps from PT.

To calculate the drag force in mN the total force (baseline) must be found and subtracted from the total force for each
position of the valve. For the baseline force, the position values in mm used were taken when there was no flow and
calculated as follows:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒)(𝑚𝑁) = (𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛100𝑔 𝑥 9.81) + (𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛10𝑔 𝑥 0.981) (4)

For the Total force, values used were taken at the different value positions with flow and calculated as follows:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒(𝑚𝑁) = (𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛100𝑔 (𝑚𝑚) 𝑥 9.81) + (𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛10𝑔 (𝑚𝑚) 𝑥 0.981) ) (5)

Finally, the total drag force can be calculated:

𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒(𝑚𝑁) = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒) ) (6)

In addition, the area of the various shapes must be calculated. This is calculated using the general equation:

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑥 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

For the circular cylinder and the triangular prism, the width is equal to the diameter. However, for the airfoil the area
used is the planform area so the width is equivalent to the characteristic length.

Therefore, for the area of the circular cylinder:

𝐴=𝑥𝐿 (7)

𝐴 = (12.5 𝑥 10−3 )𝑥 (48 𝑥 10−3 )

𝐴 = 6 𝑥 10−4 𝑚2

6
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

For the area of the Triangular Prism:

𝐴=𝑊𝑥𝐿 (8)

𝐴 = (12.5 𝑥 10−3 )𝑥 (48 𝑥 10−3 )

𝐴 = 6 𝑥 10−4 𝑚2

Lastly, for the area of the Airfoil:

𝐴 =𝑥𝐿 (9)

𝐴 = (0.062)𝑥 (48 𝑥 10−3 )

𝐴 = 2.9 𝑥 10−3 𝑚2

Using the areas calculated above, the drag force/area can be calculated by dividing the drag force by the respective
area such as in the left-hand side of Equation (1). Taking the Circular cylinder as an example, when the valve position is
fully open:

𝐷 343.35 𝑥 10−3
=
𝑎 6𝑥 10−4

𝐷
= 572.25𝑁/𝑚2
𝑎

Figures 4,5 and 6 show plots of the drag force/unit area (D/A) against dynamic pressure (12𝜌𝑈 2 ) for the three prisms
investigated. As explained in section 3.3, the best fit line through the data and constrained to pass through the origin
has a gradient that gives a drag coefficient.

Graph of Drag Force Against Dynamic Pressure - Cylinder:

Plot Of Drag Force Per Unit Area Against Dynamic Pressure

(Cylinder)
700
Drag Force/Area (N/m2)

600
y = 1.0313x + 2.9828
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Dynamic Head (Pa)

Figure 4 – Graph of drag force against dynamic pressure for cylinder

7
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Graph of Drag Force Against Dynamic Pressure – Triangular Prism:

Plot Of Drag Force Per Unit Area Against Dynamic Pressure

(Triangular Prism)
1000
Drag Force/Area (N/m2)

800
y = 1.8675x - 115.86
600

400

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Dynamic Head (Pa)

Figure 5 - Graph of drag force against dynamic pressure for Triangular Prism

Graph of Drag Force Against Dynamic Pressure – Airfoil:

Plot Of Drag Force Per Unit Area Against Dynamic Pressure

(Airfoil)
35
y = 0.046x + 5.7201
Drag Force/Area (N/m2)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Dynamic Head (Pa)

Figure 6 - Graph of drag force against dynamic pressure for Airfoil

The gradient of the graphs is equal to the drag coefficients (𝐶𝐷) for the respective shapes. The following tables
presents the expected values and the experimental values for drag coefficient.

Table 2- Experimental and theoretical drag coefficients

Expected
Experimental
Value for Percentage
Shape for drag
drag Error
coefficient5
coefficient
Circular cylinder 1.2 1.031 -14.1%

5
Sighed, H.F. and Hoerner, S.F. (1965) Fluid-dynamic drag: Practical information on aerodynamic drag and hydrodynamic
resistance. 2nd edn. Bakersfield: Hoerner Fluid Dynamics.

8
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Triangular
2 1.867 -6.7%
prism
Airfoil 0.04 0.046 15%

The values taken from the experimental are relatively close to those expected. The differences between the values are
due to both systematic and random errors which will be discussed further.

In addition to finding the drag coefficient, the velocities and Reynolds number can be calculated. These values will
allow relationships to be drawn between the magnitude of the Reynolds number and the behaviour of the drag
coefficient.

The equation for velocity of flow can be determined using Equation (3):

𝑝𝑇 − 𝑝𝑠 = 𝑝𝑑 = 12𝜌𝑢2

Rearranging to make 𝑢 the subject:

2𝑝𝑑
𝑢=√
𝜌

Where the density of air (𝜌)at ambient conditions is 1.2𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Using the circular cylinder at a fully open valve position as an example calculation:

2 𝑥 529.71
𝑢=√
1.2
𝑢 = 29.77𝑚/𝑠

In order to determine the Reynolds number of the flow for each shape the dynamic viscosity (μ) first needs to be
calculated. This can be worked out using data from ‘Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Fluids’ by G.F.C.
Rogers and Y.R. Mayhew. The temperature of the lab was taken to be 21C at the time of the experiment, which is 294
K. Therefore, interpolation between 275K and 300K needs to be carried out in order to find the correct value.

The dynamic viscosities for 275K and 300K are 1.725 kg/ms and 1.846 kg/ms respectively. The interpolation is shown
below:

294 − 275 300 − 275

=
μ − 1.725 1.846 − 1.725

μ = 1.817 𝑥 10−5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚𝑠

The Reynolds number is calculated using the following equation:

𝜌𝑢𝐿
𝑅𝑒 = (10)
𝜇

9
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Where L is the characteristic length. For the circular cylinder and triangular prism, this is equal to W. For the airfoil,
this is equal to c which is 62mm. For example, using the circular cylinder values, when the valve position is fully open,
the velocity (u) is calculated as shown below:

1.2 𝑥 29.71 𝑥 1.25 𝑥 10−3

𝑅𝑒 =
1.817 𝑥 10−5

𝑅𝑒 =24530

The drag coefficient for each valve position can be calculated using Equation (1):

𝐷/𝐴
𝐶𝐷 =
𝑝𝑑

Using the circular cylinder values, when the valve position is fully open

572.25
𝐶𝐷 = = 1.08
529.74
For all three shapes, the velocities and Reynolds number and drag coefficients have been calculated and tabulated:

Table 3 - Reynolds number and Drag Coefficients

Valve Drag Force/area Drag Coefficient
Position (N/m2) Velocity (m/s) Reynolds number
Circular
Cylinder Fully open 572.25 29.71 24530 1.08
0.9 537.92 29.71 24530 1.02
0.7 498.68 28.59 23604 1.02
0.5 343.35 23.58 19464 1.03
0.3 65.40 9.90 8177 1.11
0.1 6.54 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Triangular
Prism Fully open 881.27 29.16 24071 1.73
0.9 781.53 29.16 24071 1.53
0.7 788.07 27.72 22885 1.71
0.5 443.09 23.23 19176 1.37
0.3 150.42 15.66 12928 1.02
0.1 50.69 11.44 9441 0.65
0 32.70 11.44 9441 0.42
Airfoil Fully open 26.72 29.16 119393 0.05
0.9 31.12 30.26 123900 0.06
0.7 28.08 29.16 119393 0.06
0.5 23.68 20.62 84424 0.09
0.3 13.53 5.72 23415 0.69
0.1 1.69 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

10
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Graph Showing the Relationship Between the Reynolds Number and Air Velocity

Reynolds Number and Velocity

140000

120000

100000
Circular Cylinder
Reynolds Number

80000 Triangular Prism

60000 Airfoil
Linear (Circular Cylinder)
40000
Linear (Triangular Prism)
20000
Linear (Airfoil)
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
-20000
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 7 - Relationship between Velocity and Reynolds Number

Graph Displaying the Relationship Between Drag Coefficient and Reynolds Number

Drag Coefficient Against Reynolds Number For The Three

Experimental Bodies
2.00
1.80
1.60
Drag Coefficient

1.40
1.20
1.00 Circular Cylinder
0.80 Triangular Prism
0.60
Airfoil
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Reynolds Number

Figure 8 - Relationship between drag coefficient and Reynolds number

It can be seen that there is a positive correlation between the Reynolds number and the air velocity. As the Reynolds
number increase, the velocity does too. In all instances, the value of the Reynolds number is above 4000 and therefore
all the prisms indicate turbulent flow. It can also be seen that the airfoil has the largest Reynolds number and
therefore is the most turbulent.

Reynolds number is a function of velocity, density, characteristic dimension and viscosity and can therefore be related
to the drag coefficient through velocity. At lower Reynolds numbers the drag coefficient is a function of the Reynolds
number, however as the Reynolds number increases the drag coefficient becomes independent of the Reynolds

11
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

number. As discussed above, all flows are turbulent and therefore will be independent of the Reynolds number. This
can be seen by the lack of a clear relationship between drag coefficient and Reynolds number in figure 9.

4.1. Results from wake velocity profile measurements

In order to graph the wake profile, the velocity for each pitot position must be calculated. The velocities were
determined by finding the dynamic head in pascals for the open tube and close manometers. Given this Equation (3)
can be used:
1
𝑝𝑑 = 2𝜌𝑢2

Rearranging this for the velocity gives:

2 𝑥 𝑝𝑑
𝑢=√
𝜌

Where the density of air (𝜌)at ambient conditions is 1.2𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

As example taking the circular cylinder at 0mm:

𝑝𝑑 = (162 − 136) 𝑥 9.81

𝑝𝑑 = 255.06

2 𝑥 255.06
𝑢=√
1.2
𝑢 = 20.61𝑚/𝑠
Figures 9, 10, and 11 show plots of the velocity against the pitot tube position for the three prisms investigated.

The Wake Velocity Profile of The Cylinder

Wake Velocity Profile (Cylinder)

30
Velocity At The Pitot Tube (m/s

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Pitot Tube Position (mm)

Figure 9 - Wake velocity profile of Cylinder

12
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

The Wake Velocity Profile of The Triangular Prism

Wake Velocity Profile (Triangular Prism)

30
Velocity At The Pitot Tube (m/s)

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Pitot Tube Position (mm)

Figure 10 - Wake velocity profile for triangular prism

The Wake Velocity Profile of The Triangular Prism

Wake Velocity Profile (Airfoil)

30
Velocity At The Pitot Tube (m/s )

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Pitot Tube Position (mm)

Figure 11-Wake velocity profile for Airfoil

The wake profiles for the three shapes vary in width and velocity at the centre line. For the circular cylinder the width
is 40mm and the velocity at the centre line is 20.67 m/s, for the triangular prism the with is 40mm and the velocity at
the centre line is 15.12m/s. Lastly for the airfoil the width is 8mm and the velocity at the centre line is 22.87m/s. This
difference in values varies due to the pressure and friction drag.
Pressure drag is caused by air particles being pushed harder against the front of the object than the back. The
difference between the air flow causes a backward force which is the pressure drag. For both the circular cylinder and
the triangular prism the frontal area is larger, and therefore the pressure drag is greater, causing a wider wake profile,

13
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

which can be seen in figures 9 and 10. In contrast the airfoil has a small frontal area and therefore smaller pressure
drag which results in a narrow wake profile as in figure 11.
The more an object is streamlined by elongating the rear surface, the large the surface area gets and this increases
friction drag. This happens because friction occurs along the surface area of the shape as the fluid passes it causing
frictional drag. Therefore, the airfoil has larger frictional drag in comparison to the circular cylinder and the triangular
prism as it has a larger surface area. In addition, the frictional drag will be larger for turbulent flow, and as the airfoil
has the largest value for Reynolds number it also has the largest frictional drag. The airfoil is designed so that the
elongated shape ensures the flow lines remain around the boundary layer, this can be shown in figure 11 as the wake
profile width is contain within 8mm from the centreline.
All of the wake velocity profiles are roughly symmetrical around the y axis, indicating that the downstream air flow
returns to its original velocity once outside the wake region. This is because all the shapes are symmetrical about the y
axis, and when the pitot tube is at 0mm it sits directly beneath the centre line, meaning the air flow also hits the
shapes at the centre line. The velocity at the centreline is also the lowest velocity for all three shapes. This is because
this is when the frictional or pressure drag is largest.
Relationships between drag coefficient, the wake region and the velocity can be drawn from the figures above. There
is a positive correlation between the wake profile and the drag coefficient. The airfoil has the smallest value for drag
coefficient at 0.046 and the narrowest width profile at 8mm. As the width profile increase, as with the triangular and
circular cylinder so does the drag coefficient. Also, the prism with the smallest wake profile has the largest velocity.

5. Discussion

The aim of the experiment was to obtain the drag coefficients for the circular cylinder, the triangular prism and the
airfoil and investigate their wake profiles. The drag coefficients were 1.031, 1.867 and 0.046 respectively. This gave
errors of -14.1%, -6.7% and 15%. The wake profiles found for the circular cylinder, the triangular prism and the airfoil
had velocities and widths of 20.67 m/s and 40mm, 22.87 m/s and 40mm and 15.12m/s and 8mm respectively.

Drag is present in every life and can be separated into two categories, pressure drag and friction drag. These can be
seen within the experiment and can vary based on the area of the shapes. For the shapes with a larger frontal area
compared to the back, such as the cylinder and the triangular prism, boundary layer separation occurs. This happens
because the air flow hits the front surfaces harder than those at the back, this causes a pressure gradient between the
two ends of the shape. The triangular prism had the sharpest trailing edges and therefore had the largest drag
coefficient. This is because the pressure gradient would be largest in the triangular prisms. For more elongated shapes,
there is wall shear stress un the boundary layer and the flow speed decreases from free-stream speed to zero at the
surface. This is friction drag and is the most prominent in the airfoil.

All of the shapes showed a positive correlation between drag coefficient and the width of the velocity wake profiles.
This was due to the level of separation of air flow in the boundary layer. The cylinder and prism experienced pressure
drag which was caused by larger boundary layer separation and therefore resulted in a large wake profile width. In
contrast, the airfoil experienced frictional drag which had low boundary layer separation and produced a narrow wake
velocity profile. Another noticeable relationship is at the centreline, where the velocity is the lowest. This is because at
the centreline the proportion of air flow that has spirited from the boundary layer is at its highest and therefore
causes a reduction in the velocity. Further away from the centreline the velocity increases as there is less separation
from the boundary layer. This can be seen in all three prisms.

Another relationship that was considered was the Reynold number and the drag coefficient. At low and moderate
values of Reynolds number the drag coefficient is a function of the Reynolds number, at higher Reynolds number it is
independent of the Reynolds number. In the calculation of Reynolds number, for prims that are stubby the
characteristic length is the diameter, for streamlined bodies the characteristic length is the body length parallel to the
free stream. All the flow investigated in the experiments has a higher Reynolds number, and therefore were
independent of the Reynolds number. The airfoil had the highest Reynolds number, this was because the frictional

14
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

drag was more sensitive to the Reynold number than the pressure drags, and the frictional drag was largest in the
airfoil.

There were some discrepancies in the results, the values for the drag coefficient varied slightly from the theoretical
values. There were sources of error within the experimental equipment that could explain this. The valve that
controlled the air flow had no increments and were marked on by hand, this meant that the value of the airflow may
have been incorrect. Also, the scale on the manometer had large increments, this made the readings less accurate. In
order to minimise these errors, using equipment with a higher calibre and repeat readings would improve accuracy.

Another source of error was human error, when reading the manometer scales there could have been parallax error, it
is possible that the reading may appear higher or lower than it was and cause errors in the results. This can be
minimised by taking repeat readings. When balancing the 100g and 10g weights it was difficult due to there being a
slight oscillation of the arm that was being balanced. This made the balancing of the weight inaccurate. This could be
reduced by taking repeat readings and tightening the arm. When placing the prisms in the wind tunnel it was
important, especially in the triangular prism and airfoil, that the shape was sitting exactly so that the air flow hit the
centre line exactly. The airfoil point had to be on the 0-degree mark, however it moved a lot throughout the
experiment and therefore had the largest percentage error of 15%. This could be improved by having a clamp for the
shapes to ensure they stay in place and also taking repeat readings.

The wake profile for the prisms was expected to be symmetrical, however there is slight variation on either side. This
could be because in the second experiment the pitot tube has to be moved in small increments under the shape.
However, this was difficult as the increments were rubbed off and difficult to see. In addition, the airflow would move
the pitot tube so the increments were inaccurate. Also, parallax error was present. This could be minimised by using
an electronic measurement system that moved the pitot tube. This would eliminate parallax error and the need for
equipment of a higher calibre.

Another error could come from assumptions made throughout the experiment. For example, the theoretical values of
the drag coefficient assumed that the bodies were infinite when in the experiment they were finite. This would make
the theoretical values lower than they would be for finite bodies. In real life airfoil another type of drag, which is
vortex induced drag. This is caused by trailing vortices, near the lower surface of the shape there is a higher pressure
that on the upper surface and this causes flow around the wing tip. This has not been considered in the theoretical
values and would increase the values for the drag coefficients.

6. Conclusions
In conclusion, the experiment successfully fulfilled the objectives. The drag coefficients for the circular cylinder,
triangular prism and airfoil were found using the weighing method and were 1.03, 1.876 and 0.046 respectively. These
values were relatively close to the theoretical values with percentage differences of -14.1%, -6.7% and 15%. This
experiment successfully showed a positive correlation between Reynolds number and Velocity, however it did not
highlight a significant relationship between Reynolds number and the drag coefficient. This was because at higher
values of Reynolds number, drag is independent of the Reynolds number. The results form this experiment showed
that thick stubby shapes have a higher drag coefficient that long elongated shapes. This is because the flow separates
earlier, and the wake region in these shapes is larger (circular cylinder and triangular prism).
In the second experiment, the velocities were found in order to plot the wake traverse profiles. The wake profiles
showed a positive correlation between coefficient and wake region. The airfoil had the lowest drag coefficient at 0.046
and the narrowest wake profile at 8mm. In addition, all of the prisms had the lowest velocity at the centre line. The
results of this experiment showed that thick stubby shapes such as the circular and triangular prism experience ore
pressure drag, and the more elongated shapes such as the airfoil experience more friction drag.

However, there were slight variations in the values for the drag coefficient and also the wake profiles weren’t exactly
symmetrical. These errors were due to the equipment being of low calibre, parallax and human error. The
misalignment of the shapes affected the results greatly, as it increased loft and reduced drag. In addition, there were

15
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

problems moving with the equipment in such small increments and also staying in place, this could be eliminated by
introducing an electronic system, that was automated. Lastly assumptions also could have been a source or error, as
the body varied from those used in the theoretical calculations.

16
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2
Appendix 1
Table A.1 - Results from the weighing experiment using the cylinder, and derived values.

Valve PT manometer PS manometer PT PT Position of 100g Position of 10g Dynamic Drag Drag
Position (mm H2O) (mm H2O) manometer manometer mass (mm) mass (mm) Head (Pa) Force Force/Area
(Pa) (Pa) (mN) (N/m2)
Circular Fully 206 152 2020.86 1491.12 58 0 529.74 343.35 572.25
Cylinder open
0.9 206 152 2020.86 1491.12 54 19 529.74 322.75 537.92
0.7 200 150 1962.00 1471.50 48 55 490.50 299.21 498.68
0.5 180 146 1765.80 1432.26 42 20 333.54 206.01 343.35
0.3 146 140 1432.26 1373.40 27 0 58.86 39.24 65.40
0.1 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 23 4 0 3.924 6.54
0 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 23 0 0 0 0

Table A.2 - Results from the weighing experiment using the triangular prism, and derived values.

PT PT Drag Drag
Valve PT manometer PS manometer manometer manometer Position of 100g Position of 10g Dynamic Force Force/Area
Position (mm H2O) (mm H2O) (Pa) (Pa) mass (mm) mass (mm) Head (Pa) (mN) (N/m2)
Triangular Fully
prism open 206 152 2020.86 1491.12 33 51 529.74 312.94 521.57
0.9 205 152 2011.05 1491.12 33 20 519.93 282.53 470.88
0.7 198 150 1942.38 1471.50 29 74 470.88 296.26 493.77
0.5 180 148 1765.80 1451.88 21 53 313.92 197.18 328.64
0.3 144 140 1412.64 1373.40 7 34 39.24 41.20 68.67
0.1 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 6 3 0 0.98 1.64
0 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 5 12 0 0 0

17
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2
Table A.3 - Results from the weighing experiment using the airfoil, and derived values.

Valve PT manometer PS manometer PT PT Position of 100g Position of 10g Dynamic Drag Drag
Position (mm H2O) (mm H2O) manometer manometer mass (mm) mass (mm) Head (Pa) Force Force/Ar
(Pa) (Pa) (mN) ea
(N/m2)
Airfoil, Fully
Cylinder open Fully open 204 152 2001.24 1491.12 46 39 510.12 26.72
0.9 0.9 204 148 2001.24 1451.88 44 72 549.36 31.12
0.7 0.7 198 146 1942.38 1432.26 43 73 510.12 28.08
0.5 0.5 168 142 1648.08 1393.02 42 70 255.06 23.68
0.3 0.3 140 138 1373.40 1353.78 39 70 19.62 13.53
0.1 0.1 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 36 65 0 1.69
0 0 138 138 1353.78 1353.78 35 70 0 0

18
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Table A.4 – The wake velocity profile calculations for the cylinder.
Pitot Tube Position Pitot Tube Open Tube Notes Dynamic Velocity
(mm) Manometer Manometer (mm) Head (Pa) (m/s)
(mm)
0 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
2 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
4 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
6 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
8 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
10 162 136 Slightly Unstable 255.06 20.62
12 168 136 Slightly Unstable 313.92 22.87
14 170 136 Slightly Unstable 333.54 23.58
16 172 136 Slightly Unstable 353.16 24.26
18 176 136 Slightly Unstable 392.4 25.57
20 178 136 Slightly Unstable 412.02 26.20
22 180 136 Slightly Unstable 431.64 26.82
24 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
26 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
28 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
30 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
35 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
40 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
45 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
0 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
-2 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
-4 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
-6 162 136 Steady 255.06 20.62
-8 164 136 Steady 274.68 21.40
-10 164 136 Slightly Unstable 274.68 21.40
-12 168 136 Slightly Unstable 313.92 22.87
-14 170 136 Slightly Unstable 333.54 23.58
-16 174 136 Slightly Unstable 372.78 24.93
-18 176 136 Slightly Unstable 392.4 25.57
-20 178 136 Slightly Unstable 412.02 26.20
-22 180 136 Slightly Unstable 431.64 26.82
-24 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-26 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-28 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-30 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-35 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-40 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82
-45 180 136 Steady 431.64 26.82

19
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Table A.8 – The wake velocity profile calculations for the triangular prism.
Pitot Tube Position Pitot Tube Open Tube Notes Dynamic Velocity
(mm) Manometer Manometer (mm) Head (Pa) (m/s)
(mm)
0 150 136 Steady 137.34 15.13
2 150 136 Steady 137.34 15.13
4 152 136 Steady 156.96 16.17
6 156 136 Unstable 196.2 18.08
8 158 136 Unstable 215.82 18.97
10 160 136 Unstable 235.44 19.81
12 168 136 Unstable 313.92 22.87
14 172 136 Unstable 353.16 24.26
16 174 136 Unstable 372.78 24.93
18 176 136 Unstable 392.4 25.57
20 176 136 Unstable 392.4 25.57
22 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
24 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
26 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
28 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
30 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
35 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
40 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
45 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
0 150 136 Steady 137.34 15.13
-2 152 136 Steady 156.96 16.17
-4 154 136 Steady 176.58 17.16
-6 156 136 Unstable 196.2 18.08
-8 160 136 Unstable 235.44 19.81
-10 168 136 Unstable 313.92 22.87
-12 170 136 Unstable 333.54 23.58
-14 174 136 Unstable 372.78 24.93
-16 176 136 Unstable 392.4 25.57
-18 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-20 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-22 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-24 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-26 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-28 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-30 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-35 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-40 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20
-45 178 136 Steady 412.02 26.20

20
Paige Linden 4246802 MM2TF2

Table A.5 – The wake velocity profile calculations for the airfoil.
Pitot Tube Position Pitot Tube Open Tube Notes Dynamic Velocity
(mm) Manometer Manometer (mm) Head (Pa) (m/s)
(mm)
0 158 136 steady 215.82 18.97
2 176 136 Unstable 392.4 25.57
4 178 136 Unstable 412.02 26.20
6 178 136 Unstable 412.02 26.20
8 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
10 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
12 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
14 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
16 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
18 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
20 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
25 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
30 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
35 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
40 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
45 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
0 156 136 steady 196.2 18.08
-2 176 136 Unstable 392.4 25.57
-4 178 136 Unstable 412.02 26.20
-6 178 136 Unstable 412.02 26.20
-8 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-10 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-12 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-14 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-16 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-18 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-20 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-25 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-30 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-35 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-40 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20
-45 178 136 steady 412.02 26.20

21