Vertical Impact of a Sphere Falling into

Water
Cite as: Phys. Teach. 54, 153 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4942136
Published Online: 17 February 2016

Rod Cross

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Measuring the Drag Force on a Falling Ball

The Physics Teacher 52, 169 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4865522

The water entry of decelerating spheres

Physics of Fluids 22, 032102 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3309454

Falling and Rising in Water

The Physics Teacher 48, 478 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488195

Phys. Teach. 54, 153 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4942136 54, 153

© 2016 American Association of Physics Teachers.

Vertical Impact of a Sphere Falling into
Water
Rod Cross, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
T
he nature of the drag force on an object moving
through a fluid is well documented and many experi-
ments have been described to allow students to mea-
sure the force.1-3 For low speed flows the drag force is propor-
tional to the velocity of the object, while at high flow speeds
the drag force is proportional to the velocity squared.4,5 The
basic physics depends on whether the flow around the object
is laminar or turbulent. It is difficult to observe the flow in
a student laboratory, although a dye can be injected into the
flow of water for
demonstration pur-
poses. An alternative
method is described
in this paper that al-
lows both the drag
force and the initial
flow pattern to be
measured easily. The
technique is simply to
film an object when it
is dropped into a tank Fig. 1. A squash ball incident vertically at 2.9 m/s in water, shown at three dif- tional to flow speed squared
of water.6 The results ferent times after initial entry. The shape of the ball at 53 ms is distorted by when Re is greater than
the cylindrical lens effect of the air cavity. Enhanced video is at TPT Online at
can be spectacular http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4942136_1.
when filmed in slow
motion, adding to the interest in the experiment itself. The
results are directly relevant to the problem of calculating the
impact force on an object that falls into water. Water is not as
hard as concrete, but it can still exert a large force if the object
(or a person) impacts at high speed.
Results are described for several different balls dropped
from heights up to 44 cm into a fish tank filled to a depth of
17 cm with tap water. An advantage of using water rather
than air is that the flow can become turbulent even at low ball
speeds, especially if the ball has a slightly rough or dimpled
surface. The other main advantage is that the initial flow pat-
tern can be captured on film due to the formation of an air
cavity behind the ball and because water is ejected into the air
above the water surface. Measurements of the changing ball
speed in water provide good estimates of both the drag force
and the impact force.
The drag force on any given object depends on its aero-
dynamic shape and is usually described in terms of the drag
coefficient, CD. In air, CD is typically about 1.0 for a flat disk,
about 0.5 for a sphere, and about 0.1 for a streamlined object.7
The standard object studied by physicists is a sphere, partly
because of its simple geometry but also because of interest
in the behavior of sports balls.1,2,8 Studies of sports balls in
wind tunnels have revealed that the drag coefficient is typi-
cally about 0.5 at low ball speeds, but the drag coefficient can
DOI: 10.1119/1.4942136 THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, March 2016
decrease significantly at high ball speeds, especially if the ball
surface is rough, as it is with golf balls and baseballs. The re-
sult depends on whether the air flow around the ball is lami-
nar or turbulent, effects that can be measured by injecting
smoke into a wind tunnel.
For a smooth ball, the flow becomes turbulent at a Reyn-
olds number above about 300,000, where Re = rvD/h, r be-
ing the fluid density (1.21 kg/m3 for air and 1000 kg/m3 for
water), v is the ball speed, D is the ball diameter, and h is the
fluid viscosity (1.8 310-5
Pa.s for air and 8.9 310-4
Pa.s for water). A result in
air can therefore be scaled
in water by decreasing the
ball speed by a factor of 16.8.
For a dimpled golf ball, tur-
bulence commences at Re
about 50,000. Drag force is
proportional to flow speed
when Re < 1 and is propor-
about 1000.4,5
Figure 1 shows the result
of dropping a 22.4-g, 40.5-mm diameter squash ball from a
height of 44 cm into the water. The result was obtained by
filming at 300 frames/s with a Casio EX-F1 camera, using
bright lights to illuminate the fish tank. In this case,
Re = 130,000 at ball entry (using v2 = 2gh to calculate the
entry speed).
Despite the fact that the leading edge of the ball pushes wa-
ter downward, it is obvious in Fig. 1 that water flows around
the side of the ball and heads vertically upward, forming a
fountain in the air and leaving a vertical air cavity above the
ball. The cavity narrows and disconnects from the ball at
t = 87 ms. The cavity then rises rapidly up to the water surface
and ejects a thin, high-speed jet of water up through the cen-
ter of the water fountain, as can be seen at t = 117 ms.
The flow of the water is far too complicated to calculate
the force exerted by the ball on the water in terms of the accel-
eration of the water. However, it is easy to calculate the force
exerted by the water on the ball in terms of the acceleration
of the ball. The depth of the ball below the water surface y is
shown as a function of time in Fig. 2(a). The time origin was
chosen as the first video frame after the ball entered the water.
A cubic fit to y versus t was used to calculate v = dy/dt, also
shown in Fig. 2(a). The resulting expression for v in SI units
was v = 2.674 – 38.043t + 172.84t2, so the acceleration a is
given by a = –38.043 + 345.68t. The net force on the ball is
153
 that it is not (since the
3.0 0.15 1.0
FD-versus-v curve is con-
2.5 y cave downward rather
v 0.8 ma than upward) and that
Ball speed v (m/s)

CD itself varies with v.

Ball depth y (m)

2.0 0.1

Force (N)
FD
0.6 Despite the fact the cubic
1.5 fit in Fig. 2(a) is better
0.4 FB than the numerical fit in
1.0 0.05 Fig. 3, it is not possible to
0.2 mg
draw a firm conclusion
0.5 on the variation of CD
with v from these results,
0.0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 given that (a) good fits to
t (s) Ball speed v (m/s) the y-versus-t data can be
(a) (b) obtained either with con-
Fig. 2. (a) Measured ball depth (blue dots) and ball speed (black dots) vs time. Solid curves are polynomial stant or variable values of
fits. (b) Calculated values of net force (ma), mg, buoyant force FB, and drag force FD. CD and (b) the air cavity
above the ball may have
0.15
influenced the outcome. Consequently, additional results
were obtained using a smoother ball that entered the water
without forming an air cavity.
0.1
Results with other balls
CD = 0.34
y (m)

Results of dropping a 113-g, 50.4-mm diameter pool ball

from a height of 44 cm are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. A rubber
mat was placed on the bottom of the tank to avoid damage.
0.05
No air cavity was formed in this case, although the flow of wa-
ter around the ball’s surface is still evident while the ball is en-
tering the water. Despite the large difference in ball mass, the
pool ball created a gentle “plop” as it entered the water, while
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 the squash ball made a loud splash. Differences between the
t (s) two balls can be described in terms of the “wetability” of the
Fig. 3. The y displacement data in Fig. 2(a) (blue dots) surfaces, the point being that smooth surfaces that are treated
compared with a numerical solution (solid curve) when to repel water can also behave like the squash ball in forming
CD is assumed to remain constant.
an air cavity above the ball.9
F = ma = mg – FB – FD, where m is the mass of the ball, FB is For the pool ball, an excellent fit to the y-versus-t data
the buoyant force, and FD is the drag force. For the squash was obtained with a quadratic, giving v = 2.85 – 6.21t in
ball, mg = 0.237 N and FB = 0.341 N, at least when the ball is SI units while the ball sank to the bottom of the tank. The
fully submerged (at t > 0.02 s). The resulting calculation of
the drag force is shown in Fig. 2(b) as a function of ball speed.
Since the buoyant force was greater than the weight of the
ball, the ball floated to the water surface after bouncing off
the bottom of the tank. As shown in the supplementary video,
the ball bounced at time t = 0.17 s.
Given that the Reynolds number was very large for the
squash ball, the expected value of the drag force was

FD = 0.5CDr pR2v2 , (1)

where CD is the drag coefficient and R is the radius of the ball.

A good fit to the y-versus-t result in Fig. 2(a) can be obtained
by solving the equation of motion numerically, assuming that
CD remains constant. The best fit was obtained with CD = Fig. 4. Pool ball dropped into water from a height of
0.34, as shown in Fig. 3. The result in Fig. 3 suggests that FD is 44 cm with Re = 164,000. Enhanced video is at TPT
indeed proportional to v2, but the result in Fig. 2(b) indicates Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4942136_2.

154 THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, March 2016

 1.5
44 cm drop
Drag force FD (N)
1.0
1.60
FD = 0.233 v
0.5
5 cm drop
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
v (m/s)
Fig. 5. Drag force vs velocity for the pool ball. The red
curve is a best fit power law where the speed and
force are taken to be in SI units.
magnitude of the acceleration
therefore remained constant at
6.21 m/s2 within experimental
error, giving a drag force FD =
1.15 N as v decreased from 2.85
m/s to 2.52 m/s. In this case,
the change in v was too small to
observe a significant variation
of FD with v. However, relatively
large changes in FD with v were
observed when the drop height
was varied. Results obtained at
smaller drop heights are shown
in Fig. 5, with mg = 1.105 N and
FB = 0.659 N for all drop heights.
At small drop heights, the ball
Fig. 6. Golf ball dropped speed increased slightly with
in water from a height of
time through the water, while at
44 cm with Re = 139,000.
Enhanced video is at TPT large drop heights the ball speed
Online at http://dx.doi. decreased slightly. The velocities
org/10.1119/1.4942136_3. plotted in Fig. 5 are the average
velocities through the water for
each drop height. The results can be fitted by a power law,
indicating that the drag force is proportional to v1.60 under
these conditions. Alternatively, if we insist that the drag force
must be given by Eq. (1) and is proportional to v2 despite the
experimental evidence, then Eq. (1) implies that CD is in-
versely proportional to v0.4.
It is clear from these results, and from results obtained by
others,9-11 that cavity formation depends on separation of the
flow of water away from the ball’s surface. For a smooth pool
ball, cavity formation does not occur until the drop height is
increased to about 1 m. The squash ball had a slightly rough
surface, resulting in separation even at low ball speeds. The
effect of dimples on the flow can be seen very clearly when
a golf ball is dropped in water, as indicated in Fig. 6. In that
case, individual dimples appear to generate turbulent flow up
the sides of the ball and then vertically to the water surface.
The flow separates from the ball near the bottom of the ball
in that case, whereas it separates near the equator with the
squash ball and is much less turbulent with the squash ball.
There are many experiments that could be conducted with
this apparatus. For example, one could measure the change
in drag force with ball speed, diameter, surface roughness,
and object shape. If the incident ball is spinning, then one
can measure the Magnus force.12 The flow pattern of a fluid
around an object is a more complex issue, but could easily be
investigated as a student project, given that high-speed video
cameras are now available at relatively low cost, even built
3.0
into iPhones.
References
1. R. Cross and C. Lindsey, “Measuring the drag force on a falling
ball,” Phys. Teach. 52, 169–170 (March 2014).
2. D. Kagan and A. Nathan, “Simplified models for the drag coef-
ficient of a pitched baseball,” Phys. Teach. 52, 278–280 (May
2014).
3. P. Mohazzabi, “Falling and rising in water,” Phys. Teach. 48,
478–479 (Oct. 2010).
4. P. Timmerman and J. van der Weele, “On the rise and fall of
a ball with linear or quadratic drag,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 538–546
(June 1999).
5. J. Owen and W. Ryu, “The effects of linear and quadratic drag
on falling spheres: An undergraduate laboratory,” Eur. J. Phys.
26, 1085–1091 (2005).
6. M. Vollmer and K.-P. Möllmann, “Oscillating droplets and
incompressible liquids: Slow-motion visualization of experi-
ments with fluids,” Phys. Educ. 47(6), 664–679 (2012).
7. D. J. Tritton, Physical Fluid Dynamics (Clarendon Press, 1988).
8. J. E. Goff, “A review of recent research into aerodynamics of
sport projectiles,” Sports Eng. 16, 137–154 (2013).
9. C. Duez, C. Ybert, C. Clanet, and L. Bocquet, “Making a splash
with water repellency,” Nat. Phys. 3(3), 180–183 (2007).
10. J. Aristo, T. Truscott, A. Techet, and J. Bush, “The water entry
of decelerating spheres,” Phys. Fluids 22, 032102 (2010).
11. T. Truscott, B. Epps, and A. Techet, “Unsteady forces on
spheres during free-surface water entry,” J. Fluid Mech. 704,
173–210 (2012).
12. T. Truscott and A. Techet, “Water entry of spinning spheres,” J.
Fluid Mech. 625, 125 (2009).
Rod Cross is an honorary member of staff in the physics department at
Sydney University. He maintains a website of slow-motion video film con-
cerning the physics of sport and other physics teaching topics. See
www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross; cross@physics.usyd.edu.au
THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, March 2016 155