Ecole Centrale de Nantes

Fluid Mechanics II
Labwork I Report

ACTION OF A JET FLOW

Youssef El Iskandarani
youssef.el-iskandarani@eleves.ec-nantes.fr

El Mehdi Es-sabar
El-Mehdi.Es-sabar@eleves.ec-nantes.fr

04/04/2022
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

1. Introduction
1.1 Theoretical approach
One of the most prominent uses of fluid mechanics theories is the calculation of impact forces
that a fluid exerts on an object. This work will therefore go through a laboratory experiment that
illustrates the usage of this theory. The force that a jet flow exerts on an obstacle will be calculated
and compared with the momentum theory. Our team worked with setup A.
Furthermore, in what follows, an overview of the general theory will be exposed alongside a de-
scription of the experimental setup. The methodology that our team followed will be detailed and
both the theoretical and experimental results will be exposed. The latter will be accompanied with
a discussion where we analyze the findings and draw conclusions. Moreover, our study involved
two different obstacles: a disk, and a sphere.

The theory involved with our study is the Euler Momentum equation. Given a control volume
V and its boundary S, the equation can be stated as follows:
→
−
→
− → − −
ZZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZ ZZ
δρ V
dV + (ρ V ) V .→
n dS = ρ→
−
g dV − P→
−
n dS + τ→
−
n dS (1)
δt
V (I) S (II) V (III) S (IV ) S (V )

with:

– ρ: density of the fluid

→
−
– V : Local velocity field
– →
−
n : normal vector to the control volume
– P : Total pressure inside the fluid
– τ : Viscous stress tensor
– →
−g : Gravity vector

A thorough development of the five terms in the equations results, for our case, in the following
simplification:
ZZ ZZ
β0 .ρ.Ud0 .QV .−
→ + β .ρ.U .Q .−
n 0 1 d1 V
→ = −ρ.g.Ω→
n 1
−
e z − (P − P atm )→
−n dSi + τ .→
−
n dS (2)
Si Si

−
→
with the two last terms being equal to −Fz . Moreover, with the problem being symmetric along
the z-axis, the final formulation of the fluid force can be written as:

Fz = ρ.QV .(β0 .Ud0 − β1 .Ud1 .cosγ) − ρ.g.Ω (3)

In the following, this formulation of the force will be used to calculate theoretical results. Three
different assumptions will be made:
• Perfect fluid
• Real fluid
• Real fluid with gravity
The first assumption does not take into account the viscosity and weight of the fluid. The second
one only takes into account its viscosity, while the third takes both of them into account. This will
allow us to quantify the influence of each phenomenon on the force. The application of the three
different assumptions of equation (3) will be discussed in the methodology section.

1
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

1.2 Experimental approach

The setup that our team will use to gather the experimental data is setup A, illustrated in figure
1. In this latter, a vertical pipe generates a water jet flow that impacts the obstacle, which is
connected to a measuring device with the SEDEME AC 20 force sensor on it. Below the setup, a
water supply system generates the flow, and allows the measurements of the mass of water used.
This system is comprised of a pump, balance, valve allowing the regulation of the water flow rate,
and of two tanks.

Figure 1: Experimental setup A

Our team used this setup and a phone timer to record the forces resulting of 10 different water
flow rates for both the disk, and the sphere. In what follows of the report, the theoretical and
experimental methodologies will be detailed along with the respective results and analysis.

2
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

2. Methods
2.1 Theoretical Methodology
In this section, the result of the development of equation (3) for each one of the three assumption
will be exposed for the disk and the sphere.

2.1.1 Disk
The following list exposes the simplifications made on equation (3) for the disk case according to
the respective assumptions. Theoretical data will be generated with the 10 values of the flow rate
used in the experimental setup.
- Perfect fluid: Fz = ρ.Qv .Ud0

- Real fluid: Fz = ρ.Qv .Ud0

- Real fluid with gravity: Fz = ρ.QV .(β0 .Ud0 − β1 .Ud1 .cosγ) − ρ.g.Ω
with γ = 2,
π
ρ being the fluid density, Qv the volumetric flow rate given by experimental mass f low rate
ρ
, and Ud0 the fluid’s velocity at the outlet of the jet given by with S0 being the outlet section
Qv
S0
of the jet. For the third case, α0 = β0 = 1, α1 = 1.543, and β1 = 65 .
Ω, Ud1 , h are found as:

r
α0 .Ud2 −2g.∆z
Ω = S0 ∆z + πR2 h, Ud1 = 0
α1 and h = Qv
2πR.Ud1

2.1.2 Sphere
For the case of the sphere, the simplifications made on equation (3) are hereafter exposed with
respect to the three different assumptions. As for the case of the disk, the theoretical data will be
generated with the 10 values of the flow rate used in the experimental setup.
- Perfect fluid: Fz = 2ρ.Qv .Ud0
q
- Real fluid: Fz = ρ.Qv .Ud0 (1 + β1 α0
α1 )

- Real fluid with gravity: Fz = ρ.QV .(β0 .Ud0 − β1 .Ud1 .cosγ) − ρ.g.Ω
For the third case, we have γ = π, α0 = β0 = 1, α1 = 1.543, and β1 = 65 .
Ω, Ud1 and h are found as:

q q
2πRh , α0 , and Ω = S0 R(1 +
Qv S0 α1 α1
Ud1 = h= 2πR α0 )

3
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

2.2 Experimental Methodology

Our team started by calibrating the force measurement device. We then turned on the pump that
generates the water flow, and therefore the jet whose volume flow rate can be controlled by the
valve. As we needed ten different values of the jet flow rate, we fully opened the valve and counted
in an approximate manner how many turns this maximum vales resulted in. We divided this latter
by 10 to get an approximate of how many turns we would do for each experimental value of the
volume flow rates.

Our team used the 7.5kg weight for the balance. At first, as an attempt to get an accurate time
reading, both team members recorded the time that the balance arm takes to tip. We then assumed
the mean value to compute our flow rate. Also, at a certain point, the time span was too small and
we considered using the 15kg mass for the balance. This change resulted in a discrepancy in our
results (the force decreased for an increasing flow rate). The methodology we were adopting also
altered our results, as loading the balance and recording the time simultaneously was not accurate.
Our team therefore recorded a new sample of data with a consistent methodology throughout the
entire process of measurement.

Our team used the Matlab software to process the data. this processing included simple plot-
ting, generation of a second degree polynomial interpolation function, error calculation... The
software was also used afterwards to generate the theoretical values for each respective case.

4
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

3. Analysis
3.1 Perfect fluid
As discussed in section 2.1, Matlab was used to calculate the theoretical forces using the corres-
ponding formulation of equation (3). Those data were then plotted against the experimental ones.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate those findings.

Figure 2: Force comparison - Disk Figure 3: Force comparison - Sphere

For the disk, figure 2 reveals that our experimental data indeed show a quadratic evolution of
the force with respect to the volume flow rate. The exponents of our two sets of data are close to
each other. The theoretical values seem to somehow converge to the experimental ones for larger
values of the volumetric flow rate.
For the sphere, the two sets of values are very close to each other. Our experimental curve line
seems somehow altered by our last measurement that drives it away from the theory.
From the results above, we can say that the perfect fluid approximation does not seem very accur-
ate for the case of disk, as the two sets of data are far from each other. It is however more accurate
for the sphere. This is confirmed by the calculated error, plotted in figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4: Error plot - Disk

5
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

Figure 5: Error plot - Sphere

Figures 4 and 5 show the error for each one of the ten values of volumetric flow rate. The mean
error is as high as 34.09% for the disk. The highly decreasing trend of the curve is due to the
fact that difference values were significantly higher for low flow rates. The error is therefore not
necessarily converging towards 0 for higher flow rates.

The mean error is 9.68% for the sphere, This value is much lower than that of the disk, with
an opposite error trend. The difference values recorded were higher at higher flow rates.
In overall, we can say that the potential flow theory produced values that are not very accurate
at low flow rates for the disk, but that are acceptable at high flow rates for both obstacles. The
results are in overall still coherent with the experiment even it not exact.

Usage of the grid:

As the jet strikes the surface, the fluid’s velocity and momentum change. The direction of the
flow also changes from vertical to horizontal. Gravity then plays an important role by causing the
flow to return to its original direction i.e. fall down. A curved flow is therefore created and the
pressure becomes lower when going towards the curvature. This means that the central pressure
of the curved vortex is negative. The grid has a strong effect on the fluid dynamics as it produces
three phenomena: reduction of bubbles formation, turbulence development in shear stress layers
generated on the grid wake, and generating side vortices due to the jet dynamics.

Figure 6: Error plot - Disk

Limitations of the theory and experimental setup:

In the case of the perfect fluid, the theory presents limitations such as the fact that it does not take
into account the fluid’s viscosity. The transfer of momentum inside the fluid, dissipation, and ad-
herence to boundaries are all neglected effects. This assumption is valid for high Reynolds numbers

6
El Iskandarani, Es-sabar Action of a Jet Flow

which is not the case in our study. The experimental setup also presents several disadvantages that
make the measurements not accurate: the force measurement device gives values that highly oscil-
late in a wide range, recording the time interval is also very inaccurate as it is highly dependent on
human error, loading the balance with the weight also can not be done in an instantaneous manner.

Force measurement at a very low flow rate:

For a very low flow rate, the force measurement device displayed negative values; this may be due
to the weight of water droplets that stick to the obstacle. The vortex flow generated by the grid is
still not enough to evacuate them for such low volume flow rates.

3.2 Real fluid with and without gravity

Figures 7 and 8 show the comparison of results for the disk and the sphere, with a close-up view
in figures 9 and 10. For the disk, the theoretical values are slightly closer to the experimental
ones, with a mean error that decreased to 30.95% (3.56% decrease in the mean error). For the
sphere, no particular improvement is noticed as all theoretical models seem to converge with the
experimental values until a flow rate of approximately 0.00035, then diverge.

Figure 7: Force comparison - Disk Figure 8: Force comparison - Sphere

Figure 9: Force comparison - Disk Figure 10: Force comparison - Sphere

The conclusion we can draw is that taking into account the fluid’s viscosity and its weight
does not allow a significant improvement in our model. Considering only the pressure forces in
the conservation of the momentum quantity is therefore a viable approximation for us, as taking
into account viscosity does not result in significant improvements. It may instead result in added
complexities that may drastically affect the model especially for large systems. The perfect fluid
theory still gives somehow accurate results. For high Reynolds numbers, the method is expected
to be much more precise.