Measurements of fluid viscosity using a miniature ball drop

device
Jay X. Tang, Physics Department, Brown University, Providence, RI

Abstract

This paper describes measurement of fluid viscosity using a small ball drop device. It
requires as little as 100 microliters of fluid. Each measurement can be performed in
seconds. The experiment is designed to yield reliable viscosity values by operating at
properly chosen tilt angles and with calibration using well-characterized Newtonian
fluids such as mixtures of glycerol and water. It also yields dynamical viscosity of non-
Newtonian fluids at moderate shear rates. The device is easy to assemble and it allows for
the measurement of viscosity even when the fluid samples are too small to measure using
most commercial viscometers or rheometers. Therefore, the technique is particularly
useful in characterizing biological fluids such as solutions of proteins, DNA, and
polymers frequently used in biomaterial applications.

I. Introduction

The viscosity of a fluid is a measure of its resistance to flow. As a fundamental property

of fluids, viscosity is observable in our everyday experiences from pouring water, paints,
cooking oil, honey, liquid detergents and shampoo, to mixing chemical solutions or
suspensions. Viscosity is also a crucial parameter in various industrial applications
involving transport, filtration, lubrication, drug formulation and delivery, just to name a
few.

Viscosity can be measured under many experimental settings, most of which require
creating a shear flow. While numerous instruments are available for viscosity
measurements, most have drawbacks in practical applications. Commercial oscillatory
strain or stress rheometers tend to be too expensive to be generally available. Viscometers
based on recording the time of either a ball drop, such as a Hoeppler viscometer, invented
by Fritz Hoeppler in 1932, or capillary flow, such as Cannon-Fenske viscometers
(Cannon Instrument Company, State College, PA), often require several milliliters of
fluids, limiting their use to samples available in relatively large quantities. However, both
methods have been miniaturized, such as an instrument described in 1954 [1] and
commercial microviscometers currently carried by a global vendor, Anton-Paar (anton-
paar.com).

Non-Newtonian fluids, for which the dynamic viscosity varies with shear rate, pose
challenges for most existing methods. Commercial rheometers are designed to perform a
range of measurements while varying the shear rate either by a constant rotation, or the
frequency of an oscillatory shear strain [2, 3]. A newer technique known as particle
tracking microrheology [4-6], both active and passive, yields dynamic viscosity by
tracking the motion of micro-sized beads embedded in the fluids of interest. Viscometers
based on capillary flow may yield shear dependant viscosity if the driving stress is
systematically varied, although most commercial devices are not designed to do so.
Recently, a microliter viscometer has been developed, using disposable, microfluidic
chips with long channels [7]. The test fluid infiltrates into a long capillary in the chip,
1
driven by the capillary force. By recording the progressively slower flow rate into the
capillary due to the increasing viscous drag, the device has been shown to yield the
dynamic viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids as a function of shear rate. The ball drop
device has also been applied to measure dynamic viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids, by
varying the size and density of the balls used [8]. By extrapolating measurements to zero
characteristic stress, the ball drop technique has been shown to yield zero-shear-rate
viscosity of polymer solutions [9].

Here we describe a miniature ball-drop device for measuring fluid viscosity in sample
volumes as small as ~100 µl. The measurements can be made within seconds and are
readily repeatable. Biomedical researchers have actually used such a device in order to
measure and compare viscosity of fluids available in only tiny volumes [3, 10-12].
However, we found no previous effort to rigorously calibrate the measured apparent
viscosity against standard viscous fluids in order to reliably determine the dynamic
viscosity of those biological fluids. The focus of this study is on a simple design for
measuring small samples, confirming that shear viscosity of common Newtonian fluids
can be reliably determined through proper calibration. We believe this systematic effort
helps to solidify the basis for a broader range of applications using this simple technique.
The publication of this study is timely in light of recent explosion of research at the
micro- or nano- scales, often involving small amounts of soft, aqueous, or petroleum
materials.

II. Theoretical Background

When a solid sphere is moving in a liquid, a viscous drag force f will be exerted on the
sphere. According to Stokes’ law, the drag force is proportional to the viscosity of the
fluid η , the radius r of the sphere, and the velocity (or speed) v of the sphere as:

f = 6πηrv (1)

A steel ball is dropped into a fluid sample so that the gravitational force on the ball, mg,
is larger than the buoyant force Fb . The net driving force F on the ball is:

4 3
F = mg − Fb = π r ( ρ b − ρ l )g (2)
3
where ρ b and ρl are the densities of the ball and the liquid, respectively.

When F=f, the ball stops accelerating and falls with a constant speed v f , which is called
the terminal speed. The balance of forces is illustrated in Figure 1.

2
 f Fb f
Fb
FL
v v

mg mg

θ
Figure 1. Illustration of forces acting on a ball falling in a viscous liquid confined in a
capillary. Note in the tilt capillary a lift force FL is present at the steady state, as the ball
slides and partially rolls down while maintaining a constant distance from the capillary
wall.

Equating the right side of eq. 1 and the right side of eq. 2 yields the terminal speed:

2r 2 ( ρ b − ρ l )g
vf = (3)
9η
From eq. 3 a final expression for viscosity is obtained as follows:
d 2 ( ρ b − ρ l )gT
η= (4)
18L
where d is the diameter of the ball, g is gravitational acceleration, and T is the time for the
ball to drop distance L with the recording started after it has reached the terminal
velocity.

Eq. 4 can be modified as the ball drop occurs in a capillary tilted away from the vertical
direction. Following the analysis of tangential force components along an inclined plane
(Figure 1), the expression for viscosity is slightly modified, as follows
d 2 ( ρ b − ρ l )gsin θ
η= T (5)
18L
where θ is the angle between the capillary axis and the horizontal plane.

3
One immediate concern is how long it would take for the ball to actually reach its
terminal velocity after release. This time can be calculated by solving the governing
equation of motion F-f=ma, where m is the mass of the ball and a = dv dt is the
acceleration. The solution to this equation is
v = v f (1− e−t /τ ) (6)
m
where τ = . Eq. 6 shows that the difference between v and the terminal velocity v f
6πηr
decreases exponentially with time, i.e., the ball approaches its terminal velocity through
an exponential decay. For typical ball size and mass of our experiment, this time constant
is negligibly small (~1 ms in water) and can be safely ignored. On the other hand, since
the steel ball is about half mm in diameter, the Peclet number is estimated to be ~1010.
Thus, the effect of Brownian motion on the travel of the ball is also negligible.

The Stokes’ formula, which ignores inertial effect, is subject to correction in the general
ρ vd
situation when the Reynolds number ℜ = l is not much smaller than 1. Reynolds
η
number is in essence a dimensionless ratio of kinetic energy of fluid being displaced by a
moving object to energy loss due to viscous dissipation. Since the fluid flow is created by
the falling ball, its diameter d is used for the Reynolds number estimate. Brizard et al.
[13] provide a summary of corrections due to the inertial effect. These corrections
significantly complicate the analysis, which may be avoided by keeping ℜ below 1. The
necessary correction to the Stokes drag coefficient due to confinement of the capillary is
presented later in the context of measured data.

The fluid viscosity obtained by applying the Stokes’ formula while ignoring all necessary
corrections is referred to as apparent viscosity [14]. This study shows how different that
might be from the true fluid viscosity and describes a proper procedure to obtain the
latter. We conclude the section by providing as Table 1 a list of symbols used in the
entire paper.

Symbol Meaning Value and unit, if any

r radius of steel ball 0.2 or 0.254 mm
d diameter of the steel ball 0.4 or 0.508 mm
D inner diameter of capillary 1.3 mm
v speed of ball drop cm/sec
vf terminal speed of ball drop cm/sec
m mass of steel ball Kg
g gravitational acceleration 9.8 m/sec2
a acceleration m/sec2
Fb buoyant force Newton
F Net force (gravitational force-buoyant Newton
force)
FL lift force Newton
f drag force Newton
ρb density of the steelball 7.8 g/ml
ρl density of test liquid g/ml
4
 L distance of ball drop 8 cm
T time of ball drop sec
τ time constant sec
θ angle between capillary axis and the degree
horizontal plane
η (dynamic or shear) viscosity cP
K correction factor
KF Faxen correction factor
ℜ Reynolds number

Table 1. A list of symbols used. Note we have chosen to use some commonly used units
not following the SI system.

III. Experimental Components

The following materials are required for the experiments (see Figure 2):
• test liquids, such as mixtures of water and glycerol in various mass ratios. A small
volume of a few milliliters suffices for dozens of experiments.
• tiny stainless steel balls, which are commercially available as ball bearings in
various sizes with high precision. The balls we tested were ordered from Ball
Supply Corporation (Avon, CT) in two sizes, d=0.508 mm (or 0.0200 inch) and
d=0.4 mm, both of Grade 25, which specifies the uncertainty in diameter to be
within 25x10-6 inch. The density of the steel ρ b = 7.8 g/ml.
• glass capillary tubes, which are commonly supplied for volume measurements in
biological laboratories and can be purchased in cartons of 250, from Fisher
Scientific or VWR International, for example. The ones we used have an inner
diameter of 1.3 mm, each with a mark for taking 100 µl liquids.
• a 5 or 10 ml plastic syringe and rubber tubing of approximately 2 mm inner
diameter, to be mounted to the syringe opening on one end and the capillary on
the other. This simple assembly acts as a capillary pipette, which can also be
purchased from suppliers of the capillaries.
• clay, such as plumber’s putty, for sealing the ends of the capillary.
• ruler, tape, protractor, stop watch, and a small magnet to help manipulate the ball
inside the capillary.

5
Figure 2. Components for ball drop viscometry. A) stop watch. B) sample rack. C)
syringe and rubber tubing (for filling sample). D) liquid sample. E) small magnets. F)
glass capillaries. G) steel balls (inside plastic bag). H) clay.

Optional accessories:

• a commercial viscometer, such as one from CANNON® Instrument Company

(State College, PA), which can be used on selected sample material for
comparison.
• home-made plastic racks with multiple grooves to conveniently hold the
capillaries (item B in Figure 2).
• a solid plate with lengths and angles marked, held vertically on a stand (Figure
3). It is used to hold the capillary with tilt angle indicated and easily adjustable.

Figure 3. A plastic sample holding arm attached to a vertical plate. The arm is adjustable
to any tilt angle by loosening and tightening one screw knob. A sample filled glass

6
capillary is temporarily taped on the plastic arm, which is convenient for a flip in the
capillary orientation to repeat the ball drop measurement.

IV. Measurement Procedure

1. Connect one end of a capillary into an empty syringe via a 2 mm diameter

rubber tube.
2. Insert the open end of the capillary into a test liquid and gently withdraw
the syringe pistol to apply suction until the capillary is filled with the test
fluid.
3. Seal the open end by plugging it with clay before detaching the other end
from the syringe mount.
4. Pick up a steel ball by sticking it to a freshly washed finger and drop it
into the capillary tube. This works better than using forceps. When
dropped into the capillary, the tiny ball is usually stuck at the air-liquid
interface.
5. Use a magnet to move the steel ball below the meniscus and to a desired
position inside the test solution. Then, release the ball by withdrawing the
magnet horizontally away from the capillary.
6. Record the travel time t of the ball over a pre-marked distance L.
7. Flip the capillary so that the ball is again at the top end of the capillary.
Repeat steps 5 and 6 for as many trials as desired.
8. Optional: Tilt the capillary holder to desired angles and repeat the travel
time measurements.

V. Results and Analysis

V.1. Comparison of apparent viscosity with values measured by a commercial viscometer

We first explore the suitable range of viscosity for the ball drop technique, using a 0.4-0.5
mm diameter steel ball, which can be conveniently dropped in a thin glass capillary.
Starting from the low end of viscosity by filling a capillary with water, we soon discover
that the ball drops too fast (<1 sec) to measure its speed reliably using a hand held
stopwatch, given variable human reaction time on the order of 0.1 sec. A simple solution
to slow down the ball drop speed is to let it fall in a tilt capillary, the validity of which
approach is presented in V.2. The error in recording time can be reduced by orders of
magnitude using a camera with a computer interface, but the experimental condition
under which the ball falls faster than a few centimeters per second needs to be prevented
as it also violates the low Reynolds number criterion. The simplest design of stopwatch
recording of ball drop time proves to be adequate, since other sources of error are often
more significant than that caused by the time recording method. We will discuss below
how to minimize larger measurement errors and prevent pitfalls as further details of the
experiment are described.

We proceed with experiments using glycerol water mixtures in 50:50, 60:40, 70:30,
75:25 and 80:20 mass ratios, noted henceforth as 50%, 60%, 70%, 75% and 80%
glycerol, respectively. Table 2 lists typical results from a set of measurements of glycerol
water mixtures at these five weight percentages. The reproducibility worsens slightly for
liquids of higher viscosity than lower. In highly viscous fluids, tiny air bubbles remain
trapped in the liquid and sometimes get caught by the falling ball. These air bubbles stuck
7
to the ball tend to retard its travel. This undesirable effect is likely responsible for the
significantly higher value from the 1st measurement on the 70% glycerol sample, for
instance. We later found that the chance for this effect diminished over time, especially
after the ball traveled through the capillary a few times as the air bubbles were collected
by the passing ball and released once the ball hit the air-liquid interface. Another source
of error is the variable path the ball might take during the fall, which is addressed below.
Our repeated measurements show that even for 80% glycerol, the most viscous sample
tested, the standard measurement error can be kept to within 2% after averaging five or
more measurements, which is easily completed by a few upside down flips of the filled
capillary.

time 1 time 2 time 3 time 4 time 5 ave time app vis std err
glycerol
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (cP) (cP)
50% 1.83 1.82 1.76 1.82 1.72 1.79 20.98 0.25
60% 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.06 30.9 0.16
70% 7.6 6.2 5.7 5.8 6.2 6.30 63.4 2.2
75% 9.3 9.1 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.96 103.9 1.2
80% 20.7 21.4 23.2 24.0 21.4 22.14 222.0 4.0

Table 2. Apparent viscosity (app vis) calculated from ball drop measurements in
glycerol water mixtures. The diameter of the steel ball used was 0.508 mm (0.02 inch).
The inner diameter of the capillary was 1.3 mm. The times recorded were for drops over
a distance of 8.0 cm in vertical capillaries. All experiments were performed at 22oC.

The viscosity of most materials is rather sensitive to temperature. For the glycerol water
mixture in the range of 60-80%, a rise of 1oC above room temperature results in a
viscosity drop by as much as 5-10% [8]. All the experiments were performed at ambient
environment of 22oC, which varied by about 1oC. Better temperature controls must be
implemented if one hopes to achieve smaller than 5% errors.

The greatest source of error for calculating viscosity from the ball drop experiment is the
naïve application of Stokes formula without taking into account the confinement of the
ball in a thin capillary. The necessary correction depends on the size of the ball relative to
the inner diameter of the capillary. Due to the linear nature of the Stokes flow, however,
the reduction factor in the ball drop velocity is not expected to vary with the viscosity of
the test fluid. Therefore, one might first determine a correction factor of the particular
device by performing the experiment using a standard liquid of known viscosity and then
apply the correction factor to determine the viscosity of another fluid with the same
experiment. This calibration procedure is verified in detail below.

We proceed to calibrate ball drop measurements with measurements using a Cannon-

Fenske routine viscometer (CFRC 9721-B50 series, CANNON® Instrument Company,
State College, PA). Table 3 compares values for the same glycerol water mixtures
measured by the ball drop experiment, performed using different balls and capillaries.
The average values from these three experiments are compared with the viscosity values
measured using the Cannon viscometer (average of two measurements, which agreed
with each other to within 2%). Given the steep increase of viscosity at high percentages
of glycerol, preparation of the liquid mixtures is also a source of error. Repeating
measurements on samples made from the same liquid will not reduce this error. By using
8
the same liquid for both types of measurements, however, the ratios determined, i.e., the
calibration or correction factors, are not subject to this source of error.

Cannon app vis @ 90o Ratio app vis @60o Ratio

glycerol
(cP) (cP) @ 90o (cP) @ 60o
50% 4.86 20.98 4.32 52.8 10.86
60% 8.8 30.90 3.51 82.9 9.42
70% 17.4 63.40 3.64 175.8 10.10
75% 26.0 103.9 4.00 267.0 10.27
80% 44.9 222.0 4.94 475.2 10.58

Table 3. Comparison of apparent viscosity (app vis) calculated from ball drop
measurements of glycerol water mixtures with that measured by a Cannon viscometer.
The apparent viscosity values were calculated from ball drop experiments at two angles,
with the ratios to the commercial viscometer values listed. These ratios are primarily due
to strong boundary confinement of the 0.508 mm diameter ball in a thin capillary of 1.3
mm inner diameter, and the effect is much stronger as the ball rolls closer to the wall of a
tilt capillary.

These large ratios between the viscosity values measured by the two methods are actually
in line with fluid dynamic calculations for a sphere falling inside a confining cylinder. In
the simplest case as the ball falls along the axis of the cylinder at a Reynolds number
much smaller than 1, the cylindrical confinement causes an increase in drag described by
a correction factor, K , which is a function of the ratio d/D, where d is the diameter of the
ball and D the inner diameter of the capillary [15],

K = [1− 2.1044(d / D) + 2.089(d / D)3 − 0.948(d / D)5 − 1.37(d / D)6 + 3.87(d / D)8 − 4.19(d / D)10 + ...]−1
(7)

For the ball size of d=0.508 mm and D=1.3 mm in our experiment, K =3.44. The
agreement between this predicted value and the experimental values of 3.5-4.9 is fairly
good. Note that the estimate here ignores the effect of backflow [16], which is not too
strong as the ratio of diameter of the ball to inner diameter of the capillary is smaller than
0.6. The ratio is 0.39 or lower in our experiment.

The variance in the experimental factor for the five test solutions indicates the need to
consider additional effects. One might at first seek to correct for the inertial effect. Faxen
derived the correction factor as a function of Reynolds number and the ratio d/D [13, 17],
ℜ/4
K F = [1− (3 /16)ℜ − F( )(d / D) + 2.089(d / D)3 − 0.948(d / D)5 + ...]−1
d/D (8)

where F is a function that takes the values F(0)=2.104, F(0.5)=1.76, F(1)=1.48… [13].

Among the five samples measured above, the ball drop in the 50% glycerol has the
largest Reynolds number of ~1.2, followed by ~0.4 in 60% glycerol. Taking into account
the inertial effect would yield a slightly bigger value of the correction factor for 50%
glycerol, by ~10%, which can account for the difference in ratio between the 50% and
60% glycerol samples. The inertial effect becomes negligible for the more viscous, 70-
80% glycerol samples. In our measurements, however, we see an opposite trend of the
9
ratio increasing with viscosity in the range of 70-80% glycerol (Table 3), suggesting
additional effect/s yet unknown to us.

Our next attempt to assess the cause for the variable ratio is prompted by the observation
that in our experiment the ball tends to deviate from the axis of the capillary while it falls
downward. How much off axis the ball-drop trajectory is depends on how viscous the
sample is. This dependence affects the correction factor as observed. We explore this
important effect in the next section.

V.2. Effects of Capillary Tilt on Ball Drop Viscometry

When the viscosity of a test solution is within a few times that of water, it is preferable to
perform the ball drop experiment with the capillary tilted so that the ball drop time is a
few seconds or longer, which can be conveniently recorded by a hand-held stopwatch
while keeping the errors under a few percent. This simple strategy is also effective for
keeping the Reynolds number low, rendering tedious corrections as a function of
Reynolds number unnecessary.

The ball drop measurements were repeated with the capillary tilted to 60o, with apparent
viscosity calculated using eq. 5 and the results shown above in columns 5 and 6 of Table
3. Here the ratio stays nearly constant for all 5 samples measured over a viscosity range
of 5-50 cP. In fact, a master curve of correction factors can be determined as a function of
angle, as shown in Figure 4, using mixtures containing 60%, 70% and 80% glycerol to
cover a viscosity range from about 8 cP to 50 cP. The values obtained vary only slightly
with θ in the range of ~20o and 80o. As the capillary is tilted closer and closer to the
horizontal plane, however, we noted that the ball occasionally gets stuck. The simplest
explanation for this is that the ball sediments too close to the inner wall of the capillary,
and occasionally penetrates the lubrication layer and adheres to some spots on the
exposed glass surface. The more viscous the liquid to be tested, the larger the angle θ is
noted when the occasional stoppage occurs. This undesirable effect, in addition to the ball
moving too slowly, sets the lower angle limit of the ball drop measurements.

Figure 4. Ratio of apparent viscosity

determined by ball drop speed to values
measured by a Cannon-Fenske
viscometer for glycerol-water mixtures.
The general agreement among the three
standard samples and the smooth
variation as a function of tilt angle of
the capillary axis, especially in the
range of 20-80 degrees, indicate that the
technique can be applied to reliably
determine the viscosity of an unknown
fluid, following the procedure detailed
in the text. The error bars, hidden when
smaller than the size of the symbols, are
standard deviations to the means for 3 to
5 measurements.

10
As values of θ approach 90o, the apparent viscosity values in the plot become more
variable. Even a slight tilt of the capillary would result in the ball falling towards the
capillary wall and partially rolling as it travels down [15]. Thus, the drag on the ball
becomes significantly larger than if it falls along the central axis of the capillary. In the
data measured for the ball drop speed with the capillary tilted in 2o increments up to 10o
from the vertical, i.e. θ =80o-90o, note a steep increase in correction factor, or drag,
which is directly proportional to the time for the ball to drop over a fixed length of 8 cm.
Clearly, if the ball falls along the central axis of the tube, which can only last if the
capillary is vertical, it will fall faster than if it is near the edge.

It has been suggested that the ball drop viscosity measurement is best performed with the
capillary tilted somewhat even for rather viscous samples, in which case slowing the
speed of ball drop is unnecessary. The advantage is that a small tilt of the capillary would
result in the ball falling towards the capillary wall and partially rolling as it travels down
[15]. Performing the experiment with a set tilt by a few degrees actually helps to reduce
the uncertainty of the vertical setting in which very slight tilts often occur and are hard to
precisely determine. These slight and uncertain tilts would result in the same effects, but
with magnified variability, which is undesirable.

Based on the discussion above, and the shape of the curves shown in Figure 4, we suggest
to perform viscosity measurements at either θ =30o for low viscosity fluids (1-10 cP) or
θ =60o for moderately viscous samples (5-100 cP). Figure 5 shows a proportional
relationship between the viscosity values measured by the viscometer and that obtained
by the ball drop experiment performed at θ =60o using the five glycerol water mixtures
listed in Table 2. The excellent proportional relationship confirms that the method is
indeed applicable without a priori knowledge of the sample viscosity in the range of 5-50
cP. Although not tested for more viscous liquids, the method might remain valid as long
as one is patient enough to record proportionally longer times for the ball drops, or using
a heavier ball.

Figure 5. Proportional relationship

between apparent viscosity measured in
ball drop experiment and viscosity
measured using a Cannon viscometer. The
ball drop experiment was performed with
the capillary axis tilt by 30o from the
vertical direction ( θ =60o). The steel ball
diameter was 0.508 mm and the inner
diameter of the capillary was 1.3 mm.

V.3. Dependence on ball size

Varying the size of the steel ball is another way to optimize the experiment. For example,
a smaller ball should be used for less viscous samples to reduce the ball drop speed and
keep the Reynolds number low. Alternatively, one can use capillaries of different inner
diameters, bearing in mind that the correction factor becomes complicated if the ratio of
the ball diameter to the inner diameter of the capillary reaches 0.6. Nevertheless, for the
technique to be reliable, the viscosity values obtained must not vary with the ball radius
or capillary dimensions, which we test by varying the ball size.
11
We performed experiments with two ball sizes and compared the results obtained with
the same fluid. We found the apparent viscosity obtained for 60% glycerol using balls of
two radii yield approximately the same values when calculated using eq. 7. Figure 6
plots these values each divided by 8.8 cP, the known viscosity of this solution measured
using a Cannon viscometer. Again, the ratio is labeled as the correction factor.

Figure 6. Comparison in correction factor

between ball drop viscosity measurements
using two ball sizes. Both sets of data were
acquired for 60% glycerol. The systematic
difference is consistent with hydrodynamic
effects due to capillary confinement. The exact
hydrodynamic calculation is difficult and in
fact unnecessary as long as a correction factor
is determined for the ball of any chosen size at
any chosen tilt angle prior to viscosity
measurement of an unknown fluid using a ball
of the same size. The error bars are standard
deviations to the means for 3-5 measurements.

There is about a 15% systematic difference between these two sets of data, which can be
accounted for by boundary effects. According to eq. 7, a smaller correction factor is
expected for a smaller ball. Using the same sized capillary of inner diameter D=1.3 mm,
this correction factor for the smaller, d=0.4 mm, ball as it falls along the axis in a vertical
capillary is found to be 2.44, compared to 3.44 for the larger d=0.508 mm ball.
Surprisingly, the data point in Figure 6 fails to confirm this prediction at 90o, likely due to
the large variance among measurements in the vertical setting. The values on all other
angles show differences slightly smaller than the prediction at 90o, but they are more
consistent among repeated measurements. Overall, the difference between the two sets of
values is generally consistent with theoretical prediction. The exact hydrodynamic
calculation is difficult and in fact unnecessary as long as a correction factor is determined
for the ball of a chosen size at a chosen tilt angle prior to viscosity measurement of an
unknown fluid using a ball of the same size and tilt angle.

The errors for the diameter of the two sized balls are specified to be 0.000025 inch (grade
25), which translate to 0.1-0.2% uncertainties in ball diameter. Therefore, the uncertainty
in specified ball sizes is expected to be under 0.5%, which is negligible and does not
explain the discrepancy in Figure 6.

Our tests suggest the most practical ball sizes for the ball drop measurements to be 0.25-
0.75 mm in diameter. Smaller balls are harder to handle and observe; larger balls tend to
fall too fast for stopwatch recording. It is also possible to use balls of different densities,
as long as they are heavier than the fluid and are made of inert materials. It is convenient
if the balls chosen respond to the manipulation of a magnet, although other means such as
a sudden shake or jolt can also initiate a ball drop from an initially stuck position.
Exploring these variables provides a number of ways to perform the experiment without
affecting the measurement results.

V.4. Testing the method on polymer solutions

12
The viscosity measured in this study is dynamic shear viscosity. The ball drop always
creates a shear. The shear rate is ~v/r, which in samples we tested varies in the range of
1-103 s-1. Previous work has shown how to determine the shear viscosity of non-
Newtonian fluids as a function of shear rate [8], as well as how to determine zero shear
viscosity by extrapolating the fit to measurements at the range of low shear rates [9]. Our
measurements performed at a range of tilt angles also allow us to determine the dynamic
viscosity as a function of shear rate, which is directly proportional to the speed of the ball
drop. Since the dynamic viscosity of Newtonian fluids is independent of shear rate, the
apparent viscosity measured on glycerol water mixtures can again be used for calibration
to determine the dynamic viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids at different shear rates.

We performed limited tests using solutions of a linear polymer, the polyethylene oxide.
We made solutions of PEO400,000 (Sigma Inc.), long polymers of polyethylene oxide of
average molecular weight 400,000 dalton, of 0.50, 0.75 and 1% by mass, in water, and
measured their apparent viscosity values in the same range of angles for close
comparison with the glycerol water mixtures. In order to look for non-Newtonian
behavior of the said polymer solutions, we plot their dynamic viscosity determined by
plotting the ratio of apparent viscosity to that for the 60% glycerol as a function of the
estimated shear rate, v/r. The results shown in Figure 7 confirm that the ball drop
technique can indeed be used to measure the dynamic viscosity of non-Newtonian fluids,
such as polymer solutions, as a function of shear rate. These measured values of the
chosen polymer are consistent with literature values [18]. However, the limited range of
shear rate does not seem to offer a clear trend of shear thinning behavior known for most
polymer solutions. Nevertheless, this limited test shows that the technique is indeed
useful for measuring dynamic viscosity of polymer solutions, particularly at low but
practically useful concentrations.

Figure 7. Comparison in viscosity measurements for polymer solutions with 60% glycerol. A.
Apparent viscosity vs angle, measured for 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0% PEO400,000 in comparison with
60% glycerol. Each polymer solution is measured twice on the same sample capillary, showing
some variability. B. The viscosity of PEO samples were determined at each measurement angle
based on the ratio of its apparent viscosity to that of the 60% glycerol, taking 8.8 cP as the known
viscosity for the latter. All values thus determined are plotted vs shear rate, as the ball falls at
different speeds at different angles of tilt.

V.5. Additional considerations

13
One might worry about the large variability caused by how much off the capillary axis or
how close to the inner wall the ball is during the drop. A careful experimenter may be
able to increase reproducibility by suppressing variability in operation. For instance,
when holding the magnet before the release, one could consistently lift the ball towards
the upper wall of a tilted capillary. One could then release the ball by withdrawing the
magnet so that the ball is allowed to traverse the capillary axis before asymptotically
settling at some steady state distance from the lower surface as it continues to fall down
(with some rolling motion, as well [19]). To keep away from the complicated path during
the early stage of the fall, the time recording should start a few mms after the starting
position. We also terminate the recording a few millimeters above the bottom of the
liquid to avoid end effects, which have been analyzed extensively in the literature (see,
for instance, ref. [20]).

Though we have already suggested avoiding ball drop measurements in a vertical

capillary, low Reynolds number hydrodynamics can reduce variability in one key manner
even under this less ideal situation. Because the magnet attracts the ball strongly and
pulls it next to the wall before release, one might worry that the ball would continue to
fall close to the capillary wall over a long distance. However, a hydrodynamic lift force
tends to push the ball away from the wall [16]. After several mms of travel, we found that
the ball attained a constant speed over many centimeters along its path. However, this
steady state speed varies somewhat between trials, and we do not yet know if there is a
reliable way to eliminate this variability. If there is, it would render the requirement of
performing experiments in tilted capillaries unnecessary. In a recent work, Yuan and Lin
have actually advocated measurements of viscosity in a vertical falling ball viscometer
[21]. Further study is required in order to reliably validate their claim in light of the tests
performed in this study.

VI. Concluding Remarks

The ball drop viscosity measurement described in this report is conveniently low-tech,
but practically useful. It requires no computer interface, nor any electric instrument other
than a stopwatch. The experiment described can be set up in a simple laboratory,
including a college or high school teaching laboratory. Since the precision balls and glass
capillaries are supplied in packages of hundreds, multiple stations can be set up so that
dozens of students can perform the same experiment in the same session. The instructor
may require that students perform exactly the same measurements on standard samples,
so that they can compare results and confirm reproducibility of the measurements.
Alternatively, the experiment can be introduced as an evolving project. Specifically, the
author assigned the experiment to a small number of students, for them to explore for
reliable practice, variability, and in some situations, pitfalls over several lab sessions. In
addition to plotting averages in ball drop speeds from multiple repeats with standard
errors, students were asked to calculate apparent viscosity and plot it versus the angle of
tilt. Preliminary findings from those lab sessions prompted the author to repeat the
experiment in a more systematic manner. These additional results confirm the reliability
of the technique to yield viscosity values in the error range of 5-10%, dependent on how
meticulous the experimenter is, how many standard samples are measured for calibration,
and how many repeated measurements are made on a sample of interest. If performed
with care, as elaborated in this paper, the technique is reliable for practical applications.

Acknowledgment
14
A number of undergraduate students in a freshman seminar course participated in the
experiment. Mr. Dean Hudek of Physics Instructional Support designed the sample racks
and provided valuable technical assistance. Other colleagues in the author’s department,
particularly Professor Humphrey Maris, offered helpful comments and proofread the
manuscript. Funding by the National Science Foundation’s Fluid Physics program
(Award number CBET 1438033) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Swank, R.L. and J.G. Roth, Apparatus for Measuring Relative Blood Viscosity,
Review of Scientific Instruments, 1954. 25(10): p. 1020-1022.
2. Larson, R.G., The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids 1999, New York:
Oxford University Press.
3. Tang, J.X., P.A. Janmey, T.P. Stossel, and T. Ito, Thiol Oxidation of Actin
Produces Dimers That Enhance the Elasticity of the F-Actin Network, Biophys. J.,
1999. 76(4): p. 2208-2215.
4. Addas, K.M., C.F. Schmidt, and J.X. Tang, Microrheology of Solutions of
Semiflexible Biopolymer Filaments Using Laser Tweezers Interferometry, Phys
Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys, 2004. 70(2 Pt 1): p. 021503.
5. Crocker, J.C., M.T. Valentine, E. Weeks, T. Gisler, P.D. Kaplan, A.G. Yodh, and
D.A. Weitz, Two-Point Microrheology of Inhomogeneous Soft Materials, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 2000. 85(4): p. 888.
6. Mason, T.G., K. Ganesan, J.H.v. Zanten, D. Wirtz, and S.C. Kuo, Particle
Tracking Microrheology of Complex Fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1997. 79(17): p.
3282.
7. Srivastava, N., R.D. Davenport, and M.A. Burns, Nanoliter Viscometer for
Analyzing Blood Plasma and Other Liquid Samples, Anal Chem, 2005. 77(2): p.
383-392.
8. Cho, Y.I., J.P. Hartnett, and W.Y. Lee, Non-Newtonian Viscosity Measurements
in the Intermediate Shear Rate Range with the Falling-Ball Viscometer, Journal of
Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 1984. 15: p. 61-74.
9. Gottlieb, M., Zero Shear Rate Viscosity Measurements for Polymer Solutions by
Falling Ball Viscometry, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 1979. 6: p.
97-109.
10. Paniker, N.V., I. Ben-Bassat, and E. Beutler, Evaluation of Sickle Hemoglobin
and Desickling Agents by Falling Ball Viscometry, The Journal of laboratory and
clinical medicine, 1972. 80(2): p. 282-290.
11. Pollard, T.D., A Falling Ball Apparatus to Measure Filament Cross-Linking,
Methods Cell Biol, 1982. 24(Part A): p. 301-311.
12. Wagner, O., H. Schuler, P. Hofmann, D. Langer, P. Dancker, and J. Bereiter-
Hahn, Sound Attenuation of Polymerizing Actin Reflects Supramolecular
Structures: Viscoelastic Properties of Actin Gels Modified by Cytochalasin D,
Profilin and Alpha-Actinin, The Biochemical journal, 2001. 355(Pt 3): p. 771-
778.
13. Brizard, M., M. Megharfi, E. Mahe, and C. Verdier, Design of a High Precision
Falling-Ball Viscometer, Review of Scientific Instruments, 2005. 76(2): p.
025109.

15
14. Almog, Y. and H. Brenner, Non‐Continuum Anomalies in the Apparent Viscosity
Experienced by a Test Sphere Moving through an Otherwise Quiescent
Suspension, Physics of Fluids (1994-present), 1997. 9(1): p. 16-22.
15. Happel, J. and H. Brenner, Low Reynolds Number Hydrodynamics. 1983, The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 318.
16. Ambari, A., B. Gauthier-Manuel, and E. Guyon, Direct Measurement of Tube
Wall Effect on the Stokes Force, Physics of Fluids, 1985. 85: p. 1559-1561.
17. Faxen, Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys., 1923. 17: p. 1.
18. McFarlane, N.L., N.J. Wagner, E.W. Kaler, and M.L. Lynch, Poly (Ethylene
Oxide)(Peo) and Poly (Vinyl Pyrolidone)(Pvp) Induce Different Changes in the
Colloid Stability of Nanoparticles, Langmuir, 2010. 26(17): p. 13823-13830.
19. Goldman, A.J., R.G. Cox, and H. Brenner, Slow Viscous Motion of a Sphere
Parallel to a Plane Wall .I. Motion through a Quiescent Fluid, Chem Eng Sci,
1967. 22(4): p. 637.
20. Tanner, R.I., End Effects in Falling-Ball Viscometry, Fluid Mechnics, 1963. 17: p.
161-170.
21. Yuan, P. and B.-Y. Lin, Measurements of Viscosity in a Vertical Falling Ball
Viscometer, American Laboratory, 2008.

16