LAB REPORT SETG 2741 FLUID

MECHANICS LABORATORY 2020/2021 – 02

EXPERIMENT : MEASUREMENT OF JET FORCES

LAB INSTRUCTOR : ASSOC. PROF. TS. DR. JUHANA JAAFAR

SECTION : 01
GROUP NO. : 04

GROUP MEMBERS No. Name NRIC

1. LIM EN QI 990629015214
2. LEE WEI ANN 991224075598
3. MAGESWARAN A/L SARAVANAN 000829080963
4. MANIKAANDAN A/L ALAGASAMY 001212102151
DATE OF : 26/04/2021

PREPARATION
DATE OF : 26/04/2021
EXPERIMENT

GRADING SECTION

Criteria Score Comment Total Mark

Cover Sheet
Report Summary
Theory
Experimental Procedures
Raw Data an Analysis
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
References
REPORT SUMMARY

The jet is a rapid stream of fluid comes out from a small opening like nozzle with a high
velocity under constant pressure. Jet force formed when a jet of fluid strikes on a flat or curve
surface due to change in momentum of the flow according to the Newton’s Second law of
motion. This experiment aims to compare the measured force and theoretical force with two
different surfaces of deflectors. The experiment was set up to determine the measured force
by adding the desired weights on the lever mechanism when the water starts impinging upon
the surface of deflectors until the pointer is at zero notch by adjusting the flow control valve.
Time taken to collect 2 litres of water were recorded in a table to determine the water flowrate
and velocity. Force measured and theoretical force calculated also be recorded and compared
for each deflector. The relationship between log FMea and log V for both plates were plotted
in a graph and compared with the theoretical values. From the experiment, the force exerted
on the hemispherical surface is larger than flat plate. Besides, some possible errors affecting
the experimental data was discussed with its recommendation. Some examples of industrial
jet impact applications also be introduced at the end of the discussion.
 EXPERIMENT 5: MEASUREMENT OF JET FORCES

1.0 Objective
Compare the force exerted by a fluid jet impinging upon a flat plate or a hemispherical
surface with the theoretical values.

2.0 Apparatus
Jet forces measurement test-bench (depicted in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Jet forces measurement test-bench

3.0 Theory
A jet of fluid when impinging upon a flat plate or a hemispherical surface generates a force due to change of
momentum of the fluid according to Newton’s second law of motion. For example, when a velocity of water (V)
from jet nozzle with diameter (D) strikes on a flat plate or a hemispherical surface, the rate of change of
momentum (ṁ= ρAV) produced and its magnitude is the same with the force (F) exerted on the surface of the
flat plate/hemispherical to support the water jet [1]. The F generated by a jet of water when it strikes depends on
the shape of the surface (flat plate or a hemispherical surface). Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict a jet of fluid issued
from a nozzle of diameter (D), moving vertically upward with velocity ( 1 ), and strikes a flat
plate and hemispherical surfaces, respectively. The jet is deflected by the surface of flat plate/hemispherical through an angle (θ) and leaves the surface with velocity ( 2).

Figure 2: Jet of fluid strikes a flat plate

Figure 3: Jet of fluid strikes a hemispherical surface

The theoretical force generated when the jet of fluid strikes a flat plate is [1]:
(Eq. 1)
2 2
F = ρAV 1 − ρAV2 cosθ (θ = 90°, thus V2cos (90°) = V1 = 0)

Eq. 1 can be written as:

(Eq. 2)
For the hemispherical surface, the theoretical force generated is [1]:
(Eq. 3)
2 2
F = ρAV 1 − ρAV2 cosθ (θ = 180°, V2 cos (180°) = -V1, thus V2 = -V1)

Eq. 3 can be written as: F = 2ρAV12

(Eq. 4)

Where:
F = Theoretical force exerted on the flat plate/hemispherical surface (N) A = Cross-sectional area of nozzle (m2)

3
ρ = Density of water (kg/m )

θ = Angle of water flow after impact on the flat plate/hemispherical surface (°)
V1 = Velocity of water jet before impact on the flat plate/hemispherical surface (m/s) V2 = Velocity of water jet after impact on the flat plate/hemispherical surface (m/s)
F = ρAV21
4.0 Experimental Procedure

i. Assemble the tested deflector (flat plate).

ii. Set the pointer to zero (zero notch) by adjusting the screw at lever mechanism. When
doing so, do not place any weight on the lever mechanism.
iii. Turn on the main switch and the pump.
iv. Slowly open the flow control valve and put the desired weight (for instance: 1N) on
the lever mechanism. Adjust the flow control valve until the pointer at lever
mechanism is at zero notch.
v. Close the sliding valve. Determine the f lowrate of water (Q) by recording the time (t)
required to fill up two (2) litres volume of water in volumetric measuring tank.
vi. Open the sliding valve. Repeat steps (iv) and (v) by increasing the desired weight on
the lever mechanism until the flow control valve is at maximum opening.
vii. Turn off the main switch and the pump. Open the sliding valve and close the flow
control valve.
viii. Remove the weight on the lever mechanism and change the deflector (flat plate to
hemispherical surface). Repeat steps (ii) to (vii).
5.0 Results
Record your data using Table 1 and Table 2.
Density of water (ρ) = 1000 kg/m3

Diameter of nozzle (D) = 10 mm

Table 1: Data for Flat plate

Measured Volume Time (s) Q
Act
V Theoretical Percentage of
force of water (l/s) (m/s)
force (FTh)
relative error
(FMea) (N)
collected (N) %=|
F
Mea
−F
Th
|

(l) F
Th

4.0 3.19 0.6270 7.9832 5.0055 20.09

3.6 3.53 0.5666 7.2142 4.0876 11.93
3.2 3.80 0.5263 6.7011 3.5268 9.27
2.8 4.78 0.4184 5.3272 2.2289 25.62
2.4 2.0 4.09 0.4890 6.2261 3.0445 21.17
2.0 4.88 0.4098 5.2177 2.1382 6.46
1.6 5.60 0.3571 4.5467 1.6236 1.45
1.2 7.18 0.2786 3.5472 0.9882 21.43
0.8 8.16 0.2451 3.1207 0.7649 4.59
0.4 12.46 0.1605 2.0435 0.3280 21.95
 Table 2: Data for Hemispherical surface
Measured Volume Time (s) Q
Act
V Theoretical Percentage of
force of water (l/s) (m/s)
force (FTh)
relative error
(FMea) (N)
collected (N) %=|
F
Mea
−F
Th
|

(l) F
Th

8.0 3.53 0.5666 7.2142 8.1752 2.14

7.2 3.66 0.5464 6.9570 7.6026 5.30
6.4 3.81 0.5249 6.6832 7.0160 8.78
5.6 3.91 0.5115 6.5126 6.6624 15.95
4.8 2.0 4.85 0.4124 5.2508 4.3308 10.83
4.0 5.44 0.3676 4.6804 3.4410 16.25
3.2 5.68 0.3521 4.4831 3.1570 1.36
2.4 7.06 0.2833 3.6071 2.0438 17.43
1.6 8.92 0.2242 2.8546 1.2800 25.00
0.8 10.93 0.1830 2.3300 0.8528 6.19
6.0 Discussion
i. Plot a graph of log versus log V for both the flat plate and hemispherical surface
on the same graph:
Table 3: log FMea and log V for flat plate

Measured force
log FMea V (m/s) logV

(FMea) (N)

4.0 0.6021 7.9832 0.9022

3.6 0.5563 7.2142 0.8582
3.2 0.5051 6.7011 0.8261
2.8 0.4472 5.3272 0.7265
2.4 0.3802 6.2261 0.7942
2.0 0.3010 5.2177 0.7175
1.6 0.2041 4.5467 0.6577
1.2 0.0792 3.5472 0.5499
0.8 - 0.0969 3.1207 0.4943
0.4 - 0.3979 2.0435 0.3104

Table 4: log FMea and log V for hemispherical surface

Measured force
log FMea V (m/s) logV

(FMea) (N)

8.0 0.9031 7.2142 0.8582

7.2 0.8573 6.9570 0.8424
6.4 0.8062 6.6832 0.8250
5.6 0.7482 6.5126 0.8138
4.8 0.6812 5.2508 0.7202
4.0 0.6021 4.6804 0.6703
3.2 0.5051 4.4831 0.6516
2.4 0.3802 3.6071 0.5572
1.6 0.2041 2.8546 0.4555
0.8 - 0.0969 2.3300 0.3674
 Graph log FMea vs log V for flat plate and hemispherical surface
1
0.8 y = 1.8415x - 0.6861

0.6
FMea

0.4

0.2 y = 1.7006x - 0.9047

log

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-0.2
-0.4

-0.6 log V

flat plate hemispherical surface Linear (flat plate) Linear (hemispherical surface)

Figure 4: Graph log FMea vs logV for flat plate and hemispherical surface
 a. Estimate the slope of the graph for both the flat plate and hemispherical surface
and compare with the theoretical value as shown in Eq. 2 and Eq. 4, respectively.
Comment on the difference.
Table 5: log FTh and log V for flat plate

Theoretical force ( )
log FTh logV

V m/s
(FTh) (N)

5.0055 0.6994 7.9832 0.9022

4.0876 0.6115 7.2142 0.8582
3.5268 0.5474 6.7011 0.8261
2.2289 0.3481 5.3272 0.7265
3.0445 0.4835 6.2261 0.7942
2.1382 0.3300 5.2177 0.7175
1.6236 0.2105 4.5467 0.6577
0.9882 - 0.0052 3.5472 0.5499
0.7649 - 0.1164 3.1207 0.4943
0.3280 - 0.4841 2.0435 0.3104

Table 6: log FTh and log V for hemispherical surface

Theoretical force
log FTh V (m/s) logV

(FTh) (N)

8.1752 0.9125 7.2142 0.8582

7.6026 0.8810 6.9570 0.8424
7.0160 0.8461 6.6832 0.8250
6.6624 0.8236 6.5126 0.8138
4.3308 0.6366 5.2508 0.7202
3.4410 0.5367 4.6804 0.6703
3.1570 0.4993 4.4831 0.6516
2.0438 0.3104 3.6071 0.5572
1.2800 0.1072 2.8546 0.4555
0.8528 -0.0692 2.3300 0.3674
 Graph log FTh vs log V for flat plate and hemispherical surface
1
0.8

0.6 y = 2.0001x - 0.804

FTh

0.4

0.2 y = 2.0001x - 1.105

log

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.2
-0.4

-0.6 log V

flat plate hemispherical surface Linear (flat plate) Linear (hemispherical surface)

Figure 5: Graph log FTh vs logV for flat plate and hemispherical surface
The values of log FMea and logV for both flat plate and hemispherical surface are calculated and recorded in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. From the table, the value of
FMea increasing with V resulting the value of log FMea directly proportional to logV. Based on the results obtained, graph of log FMea against log V has been plotted for
both types of deflectors in a same graph in Figure 4. The graph plotted is in linear form which can be expressed as y = mx + c, where m represented as the gradient or slope.
According to the graph plotted, the slope of log FMea for hemispherical surface is much steeper than flat plate. The slope for flat plate is 1.7006 while for hemispherical
surface is 1.8415.
FTh = ρAV21

(Eq. 2)
FTh = 2ρAV21

(Eq. 4)

Theoretical forces (FTh) for flat plate and hemispherical surface are calculated using (Eq. 2) and (Eq. 4) respectively and are recorded in the table
1 and 2 respectively. The values of log FTh and logV for flat plate and hemispherical surface are calculated and recorded in table 5 and table 6 respectively.
Based on Figure 5, the values of logFTh and logV also produced a linear graph for both tested deflectors. The gradient obtained for both flat plate and
hemispherical surface are the same which is 2.0001.

To conclude, both flat plate and hemispherical surface gave positive slope of linear graph in
theoretical and experimental. The slope obtained for measured force and theoretical force are slightly
different. The slope of log FMea for both flat plate and hemispherical surface is smaller as compared to the
slope of log FTh. Thus, we can conclude that the experimental value is smaller than the theoretical value for
both deflectors. The difference between experimental and theoretical values may be due to different angle of
jet impinges the surfaces which resulting difference in the force impact toward the plat and hemispherical
surfaces. In addition, the water jet may not impinge at the center of the surface which cause the difference in
value. Besides, the difference may also caused by some errors during conducting the experiment.
b. Estimate the y-intercept ratio of hemispherical surface to flat plate, and compare
with the theoretical ratio, as deduced from Eq. 2 and Eq. 4. Comment on the
difference.

Figures 4 and 5 above showed the graph log F vs logV for flat plate and hemispherical
surface. From the graph, y-intercept of hemispherical surface to flat plat can be
determined using the equations generated. For example, the y -intercept of the
hemispherical surface is -0.6861 while for the flat plate is -0.9047. Therefore, the y-
intercept ratio calculated is 0.75837 as shown below:
−0.6861
y − intercept ratio = −0.9047 = .

Next, to calculate the theoretical ratio, same method is used. The y -intercept
of hemispherical surface and flat plate that deduced from Eq. 2 and Eq. 4 are
displayed by using a graph as shown in Figure 5. The results can be seen more clearly
and directly. According to the graph, y-intercept of hemispherical surface and flat
plate are -0.804 and -1.105 respectively. The ratio is calculated as follow:
−0.804
y − intercept ratio = −1.105 = .

By comparing both y-intercept ratios, the experimental ratio is 0.75837 while

the theoretical ratio is 0.72760. There was little difference between the results
obtained which is only 0.03. Therefore, it can be said that this experiment was
conducted successfully because there was only a small deviation from the theoretical
results. Whether it is a major loss or a minor loss, this deviation is inevitable. This is
the reason why there was a difference in ratio between both experiment and theory.
c. Compare the force exerted on the hemispherical surface with the one on the flat
plate, which one is greater? Why?

The force exerted on the hemispherical surface is larger than that of the flat plate. This
is caused by the different designs or shapes of the surface. For example, for the flat
plate, there is a radial sheet-form when water strikes within the pipe. The water moved
right and left at an angle of 90°. In opposite, due to the hemispherical shape, when
water hit the surface, it makes a 180° U-turn to right and left from the middle.

From the equation given:

2 2
F = ρAV − ρAV cosθ

For flat plate (θ=90°):

2 2 2 2
F = ρAV − ρAV cos(90°) F = ρAV − ρAV (0)
=

For hemispherical surface (θ=180°):

2 2 2 2
F = ρAV − ρAV cos(180°) F = ρAV − ρAV (−1)
2 2
F = ρAV + ρAV =

To sum up, based on the calculation above, the force exerted by water strikes
on hemispherical surface is greater, which is twice the force exerted on the flat plate.
ii. Compare the percentage of relative error for both the flat plate and
hemispherical surface as function of jet velocity. Comment on the analysis and
explain your reason.

From the data collected, the lowest and highest percentage of relative error for flat
plate are 1.45% and 25.62% respectively. For the hemispherical surface, the range of
its relative error percentage start from 1.36% to 25.00%. The average percentage of
relative error for flat plate and hemispherical surface are 14.40% and 10.92%
respectively. In fact, the percentage of relative error calculated for both flat plate and
hemispherical surface are not stable and inconsistent.

Avg % relative error (flat plate):

20.09 + 11.93 + 9.27 + 25.62 + 21.17 + 6.46 + 1.45 + 21.43 + 4.59 + 21.95
10
= . %

Avg % relative error (hemispherical surface):

2. 14 + 5.30 + 8.78 + 15.95 + 10.83 + 16.25 + 1.36 + 17.43 + 25.00 + 6.19 10
= . %

The lower the percentage of relative error means that the velocity of water
strikes on the flat plate and hemispherical surface is more constant and stable. Due to
the uneven shape of hemispherical surface, the redirected force of the jet is not
uniform and reflected back to main jet water stream. For the flat plate, the relative
even shape of its surface is more uniform when water strikes on it. The other errors
that may happen in the experiment will result in the inconsistent of results. Next, the
spring coil should be held in a standard position(straight) to ensure the velocity of
water strike on it is more precise. This is because different angle may cause the
different force exerted on the surface. Lastly, the external weight applied on the
balance causes the imbalance of force.
iii. Briefly discuss on factors contributing to errors or inaccuracy in experimental
data, and the possible recommendations to improve the existing results.

There were a few errors that might affect the data collected during the e xperiment.
Firstly, the condition of the instrument, hydraulic water pump bench. Poorly
maintenance of the hydraulic water bench surface of the water reservoir effects the
stream off the water causing the irregular flow of the water. Presence of impurities in
the reservoir and fluid like dust disrupt the flow of water through both weirs. The
pump also does not show a consistent flow rate as it increases causing the difficulty to
maintain a steady flow in order to measure the height as a steady flow of wate r. The
condition of the pump which produce a vibration throughout the bench also cause the
water to have an inconsistent flow throughout the experiment. The presence of
leakage at the bench also affects the water even though the leakage is minimal it still
effects the result of the experiment over time due to the loss of water. Environmental
factors that affect the result of the experiment are running the experiment in a fan
condition room cause the water surface to ripple due to the air movement surrounding
the environment. An air-conditioned room is highly advised to run this experiment.

From the result, we assumed the errors occurred during the experiment. Then, some
of precautions should be taken, for example:

➢ Avoid shaking the water bench, so that the water level is set to a
balanced position.

➢ During the experiment, the measurement taken using eye that can
make errors while reading the measurement that needs to be avoided.

With the measurement taken, it can lower to the minimum error and get accurate
reading to avoid the great difference of gradient of slope value. However, in this
experiment we have success to prove that when the greater surface area of vane plate,
the larger the forces that can withstand by the plate.
iv. Suggest two (2) applications of jet impact in industry.

1. One of the applications of jet impact is used to generate electricity. Impact of jet is
used to rotate the turbine namely Pelton wheel in the generator. The water jet is
applying force tangential to the wheel.

2. Besides, another application of water jet is water jet cutter. Water jet cutter is
capable to slice metal or other material by using the high pressure and high
velocity of water jet together with abrasive substance. The process of water jet
cutting is similar with water erosion found naturally but occurs with highly
accelerated and concentrated.
7.0 Conclusion

The value of slope obtained for both flat plate and hemispherical plate clearly reveals the
theoretical slope is bigger than the measured slope. The values obtained through the
experiment is not as ideal as the theoretical value due to the errors made. By comparing both
y-intercept ratios of hemispherical surface and flat plate that we got from the graph, the
experimental ratio is 0.75837 while the theoretical ratio is 0.72760.The average percentage in
experiment is the average percentage error for flat plat is 14.40% while for hemispherical
plate in table 2, the average percentage error is 10.92%.This is due to poor maintenance of the
hydraulic water bench surface of the water reservoir, presence of impurities in the reservoir
and fluid, presence of leakage at the bench or running the experiment in a fan condition room.
In conclusion measured force of hemispherical plate is greater than of flat surface.
8.0 Reference

[1] Ahmari, H., & Kabir, S. M. I. (2019). EXPERIMENT #5: IMPACT OF A JET. Applied

Fluid Mechanics Lab Manual. Mavs Open Press.

[2] B. R. Munson, A. P. Rothmayer, T. H. Okiishi. 2012. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics,

7th Edition, Wiley

[3] Hossain, Farzad & Morshed, Afshana & Sultana, Rifat & Islam, Md. (2018).

Measurement of Flow Rate and Impact Force on Different Vanes through Impact of

Jet. International Journal of Modern Research in Engineering & Management (2581-

4540). 1. 22-28.

[4] Koswatte, N. (2010, April 3). Water Jet Cutter. Retrieved from

http://seneviyahnd.blogspot.com/2010/04/water-jet-cutter.html

[5] Morshed, A., Hossain, F., & Setu, R. (2018). Impact of Jet. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326718248_STUDY_OF_IMPACT_OF_JE

T_ONDIFFERENT_VANES_FOR_MEASURING_FLOW_RATE_AND_IMPACT_

FORCE