You are on page 1of 9

ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Determination of the Viscosity of Different Liquids Using a Falling


Ball Viscometer
Arvin Jarell S. Balajadia​ 1​, Janella B. Umbina​1​, Daryll John A. Velasco​1

1​
​University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City

Abstract. The viscosity of canola oil, dishwashing liquid, sugar solutions, and water were determined using a falling ball
viscometer. The viscometer was utilized by measuring the time elapsed for a glass ball to pass a certain length of
liquid in the burette. It was observed that as the fluid viscosity increases, the average ball velocity decreases. The data
obtained from viscometer was used to calculate the viscosities of the water, canola oil, dishwashing liquid, and the
0.1 M, 0.5 M, and 2 M sugar solutions: 0.0058, 0.1103, 9.7544, 0.0043, 0.0046, and 0.0099 Pa-s, respectively. The
calculated data yielded a percent error of 46% for canola oil, 551% for water, 322% for 0.1 M sugar solution, 267%
for 0.5 M sugar solution, and 60% for the 2 M sugar solution when compared with the theoretical data.

Keywords:​ Viscosity; Density; Drag Force

Nomenclature

C​D Drag Coefficient D​p Particle diameter

g Gravity V​t Terminal velocity

⍴​p Particle density μ Viscosity

⍴ Fluid density F​D Drag force

S Cross sectional area

1 ​Introduction
In most cases, the drag coefficient can be defined
Viscosity is a fluid property that quantifies the by Equation 2 (Wydzial, n.d.). From this equation, the
resistance of a fluid to gradual deformation caused by drag coefficient can easily be calculated because all of
shear or tensile stress. It is a property that measures the the other values are known.
fluid’s resistance to flow; whereas, highly viscous
fluids have high resistance, while less viscous fluids 4g(⍴p − ⍴)Dp
have little to no resistance to motion (Petrucci, 2007). CD = 3⍴V t2
​[2]

When an object flows freely through a fluid, it Afterwards, the the drag coefficient can be used to
experiences a net force exerted by the fluid, called the determine the Reynolds number using the Dallavale
drag force. The drag force can be related to the drag equation, as seen in Equation [3].
coefficient, as shown in Equation 1.
4.8 2
F D /S N Re = ( C 0.5
− 0.632
) [3]
CD = 1 2 ​[1] D
2 ⍴v
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Finally, the viscosity of a fluid can be determined


by rearranging the formula for Reynolds number, using
Equation [3].

Dp ⍴
μ = N Re [4]

In this experiment, it is aimed to determine the


viscosity of different liquids such as water, canola oil,
sugar solution, and dishwashing liquid. The scope of
the paper focuses more on the calculation of the
viscosity of different liquids. Moreover, the study is Figure 1. ​Falling ball viscometer setup.
limited to the four liquids that were utilized which are
water, sugar solution , canola oil, and dishwashing The burette was filled with water until the topmost
liquid. increment, and the height was recorded. The glass ball
was then dropped just above the liquid surface. At the
same time, the travel time of the ball to traverse the
2 ​Materials and Methodology measured height was recorded. This procedure was
repeated for the other fluids.
The fluids in study were prepared first before
starting the experiment. Aside from water, canola oil,
and dishwashing liquid, three sugar solutions were 3​ ​Results and Discussion
prepared. The three solutions contained 1.86 g, 8.58 g,
and 40 g of sugar; and, they were dissolved in 60 mL The  densities  and  diameters  of  the  balls  used  in  the 
of water. experiment were calculated and shown in Fig. 2. 

2.1 Ball mass and volume measurements

Five glass balls were obtained and labelled,


accordingly. Afterwards, the diameters of each ball
were then measured using a Vernier caliper; and, they
were weighed, individually.

2.2 Liquid density measurements

 
The top-loading balance was tared while the
graduated cylinder was on top. The water was then Figure 2. ​Scatter plot of calculated densities of the 
poured into the graduated cylinder until the mass was balls based on measured diameter. Raw data can be 
40 g. Afterwards, the fluid volume was recorded. The found in Appendix A Table 3. 
procedure was repeated for the other fluids. The  densities  of the fluids were also calculated using 
the  experimentally  determined  volume  and  mass,  as 
2.3 Liquid viscosity measurements shown in Table 1. 
 
The falling ball viscometer setup was prepared, as
shown in Fig. 1.  
 
 
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Table 1. ​Experimental densities of the fluids used.  Telis  et  al  while  that  of  canola  oil  was  obtained  from 
Sahasrabudhe et al. 
Fluid  Density (kg/m​3​) 
Table 2. ​Experimental and literature values for fluid 
Water  976.3414  viscosities and their relative deviations. It should be 
noted that there are no available literature values for 
Canola Oil  891.7778  dishwashing liquid due to P&G’s (the company that 
owns Joy Dishwashing Liquid) non disclosure of its 
Dishwashing Liquid  1013.75  information.  
Sugar Solution (SS) 1  998 
Fluid  Expt’l  Literature  %Relative 
Sugar Solution (SS) 2  1019.25  Viscosity  Viscosity  Error 
(Pa s)  (Pa s) 
Sugar Solution (SS) 3  1124 
Water  0.0058  0.00089  550.79 
 
It  could  be  observed  from  Table  1  that  the  density  Canola Oil  0.1103  0.0635  45.91 
of  the  sugar  solution  increases  with  sugar 
concentration  due  to  an  increase  in  the  mass  of  matter  Dishwashing  9.7544  -  - 
present  at  constant  volume  (​Sahasrabudhe & Farkas, Liquid 
2017)​.  
SS 1  0.0043  0.001  321.51 
Aside  from  the  parameters  presented  in  Fig.  2  and 
Table  1,  the  velocities  of  the  spheres  as  they  traverse  SS 2  0.0046  0.0013  269.58 
the  fluid  were  also  recorded  and  shown  in  Fig.  3.  The 
SS 3  0.0099  0.0062  59.67 
Reynolds  Number  was  also  calculated  using  equation 
2. 
  Large  deviations  from  literature  values  were 
observed  in  the  experiment,  as  shown  in  Table  2, 
especially  in  the  case  of  water,  SS  1,  and  SS  2.  This 
may  due  to  errors  in  the  time  measurement.  The 
aforementioned  liquids  have  low  viscosities  relative to 
the  other  fluids  in  study.  This  would  allow  for  faster 
falling  rates  and  more  room  for  human  error  since  the 
stopwatch  used  in  the  experiment  was  manually 
operated.  Consequently,  canola  oil  and  the  third  sugar 
solution,  which  are  both more viscous, exhibited lower 
deviations  due  to  slower  velocities  observed  for  each 
  ball. 
Figure 3. ​Scatter plot of calculated velocities and 
Reynolds Number for each fluid used. Raw data can be 
found in Appendix A Table 4.  Aside  from  human  errors  previously  mentioned,  the 
  existence  of  air  bubbles,  especially  in  the dishwashing 
It  can  be  observed  from  Fig.  3  that  only  the  liquid  and canola oil, may have also interfered with the 
dishwashing  liquid  generated  a  Reynolds  Number  less  obtained  results.  Generally,  the  presence  of  bubbles 
than  unity  which  means  that  it  is  the  only fluid among  would  decrease  the  velocity  of  the  falling  particle, 
all  the  liquids  used  where  Stoke’s  Law  could  be  used.  which  would  result  to  higher viscosity values. Another 
With  this,  the  fluid  viscosities  were  calculated  by  source  of  error  would  be  the  interaction  between  the 
following  Equations  2-4.  The resulting average values,  ball  and  the  wall  of  the  burette.  There  were  cases 
the  literature  viscosities,  and  the  relative  error  are  where  the  ball  moved sidewards, thereby increasing its 
shown  in  Table  2.  Literature  value  for  the  sugar  interaction  with the burette. With these errors, it can be 
solutions’  viscosity  was  obtained  from  the  work  of  said  that  free  settling  was  not  accurately  imitated  by 
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

the  setup  provided.  For free settling to be obtained, the  References


ball  shouldn’t  be  hindered  by  other  particles  in  the 
liquid or the wall of the column (Geankoplis, 2003). 
Brown University Physics Department. (n.d.).
Measuring Fluid Viscosity by Ball Drop.
However,  despite  the  deviations  observed,  the  Retrieved February 25, 2019 from
average  ball  velocity  still  decreased  with  increasing  https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/downloadat
fluid  viscosity.  This  is  the  expected  trend  because  tachments/1162150/Tang_Balldrop.pdf?vesion
more  viscous  fluids  exert  greater  buoyant  forces  than  =1&modificationDate=1466695891000&api=
less viscous ones (Geankoplis, 2003).   v2
 
4 Conclusion and Recommendation Geankoplis, C. J. (1993). ​Transport Processes and
The  fluid  viscosity  and  average  ball  velocity  was  Unit Operations(​ 3rd ed.). Prentice Hall
observed  to  be  indirectly  proportional  with each other.  International.
Using  the  measured  falling  length  and  elapsed  time  to 
pass  the said length, the viscosities of the water, canola  Petrucci, R. H. (2007). General chemistry: Principles
oil,  dishwashing  liquid,  and  the  three  sugar  solutions  and modern applications. Upper Saddle River,
(0.1  M,  0.5  M,  and  2  M)  were  determined  to  have  N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
values  of  0.0058,  0.1103,  9.7544,  0.0043,  0.0046,  and 
0.0099 Pa-s, respectively.   Sahasrabudhe, S., Martinez, V. R., & Farkas, B. E.
  (2017). Density, viscosity, and surface tension
A  percent  error  of  46%,  and  551%  were  calculated  of five vegetable oils at elevated temperatures:
for  the  viscosity  of  the  canola  oil  and  water,  Measurement and modeling. ​International
respectively;  while a percent error of 322%, 270%, and  Journal of Food Properties,20,​ 1965-1981.
60%  were  calculated  for  the  viscosity  of  the  three 
sugar  solutions  (0.1  M,  0.5  M,  and  2 M), respectively.  Telis, V. N., Romero, J. T., Mazzotti, H. B., & Gabas,
Errors  during  the  experiment  may  be  attributed  to  A. L. (2007). Viscosity of Aqueous
human  errors  like  slow  reflexes  during  the  time  Carbohydrate Solutions at Different
measurement.  Also,  free  settling  was  not  achieved  Temperatures and Concentrations.
during  the  experiment  due  to  the  presence  of  air  International Journal of Food Properties,10,​
bubbles  in  some  of  the  fluids  and  the  friction  between  185-195.
the wall of the burette and the glass ball. 
 
Wydział Fizyki PW. (n.d.). ​Viscosity. Retrieved
It  is  recommended  to  increase  the  number  of  trials 
February 25, 2019 from http://www.if.pw.e
per  measurement  in  order  to  increase the accuracy and 
du.pl/~agat ka/lab/kulki.pdf
precision of the data. 
   
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Appendix A: Raw Data


Table 3. ​Experimental diameter and densities of the balls used.

Ball Density (kg/m​3​) Diameter (m​3​)

1 3672.911683 3.475

2 2176.014186 2.975

3 2733.135131 3.83

4 2933.543911 3.75

5 3149.902801 3.65

Table 4. ​Calculated average velocities and Reynolds Number for the fluids used.

Fluid Velocity (m/s) Reynolds Number

Water 0.31058385 251.7123295

Canola Oil 0.091458837 2.772901301

Dishwashing Liquid 0.001957269 0.001114278

SS 1 0.321355137 274.8251103

SS 2 0.313019554 272.563701

SS 3 0.246275181 118.164053
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Appendix B: Sample Calculations

Water:

4g(ρP −ρ)DP 4(9.81)(976.3414−3672.911683)(0.003475)


CD = 3ρvT2
= 3(976.3414)(0.33507)
= 1.1181227

2 2
N Re = ( C 0.54.8
−0.632
) = ( 4.8
0.5
1.1181227 −0.632
) = 127.3094141
D

DP v T ρ (0.003475)(0.33507)(976.3414)
μ= N Re
= 127.3094141
= 0.008929714

Spreadsheet Data

Volume,
Ball Mass, g Diameter, mm Density, kg/m3
cm​3

1 0.0807 3.475 0.021971669 3672.911683

2 0.03 2.975 0.013786675 2176.014186

3 0.0804 3.83 0.029416767 2733.135131

4 0.081 3.75 0.027611654 2933.543911

5 0.0802 3.65 0.025461103 3149.902801

Mass, g Volume ml Density kg/m3

Water 40.03 41 976.3414634

Oil 40.13 45 891.7777778

DW Liquid 40.55 40 1013.75

SS 1 19.96 20 998

SS 2 40.77 40 1019.25

SS 3 44.96 40 1124
ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Velocities
Dishwashing
Ball Water Canola Oil Liquid SS 1 SS 2 SS 3

1 0.335074627 0.102745995 0.00210808 0.354609929 0.337837838 0.282485876

2 0.196069869 0.041497227 0.000268573 0.230414747 0.204081633 0.12755102

3 0.36504065 0.104906542 0.002641798 0.324675325 0.316455696 0.279329609

4 0.313986014 0.098898678 0.00249597 0.342465753 0.352112676 0.27027027

5 0.342748092 0.109245742 0.002271922 0.354609929 0.354609929 0.27173913

Cd, Re and Viscosities

Water

Ball Cd Re μ

1 1.118122709 127.3094141 0.008929714

2 1.243752731 98.66492468 0.005772139

3 0.676461498 635.0626445 0.002149439

4 0.997361091 171.359743 0.00670864

5 0.904733528 226.1649212 0.00540063

SS 1

Ball Cd Re μ

1 0.968812371 185.6521232 0.006624244

2 0.865155458 259.2088055 0.002639235

3 0.826248554 300.3162977 0.004132375

4 0.81110523 319.3197711 0.004013776

5 0.81863618 309.6285538 0.004171894


ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

SS 2

Ball Cd Re μ

1 1.036837768 154.4330661 0.007748248

2 1.060354266 145.6447229 0.004248903

3 0.84116593 283.3562008 0.004359731

4 0.743025279 435.5798813 0.003089768

5 0.793653234 343.8046341 0.003837185

SS 3

Ball Cd Re μ

1 1.291687788 90.51448149 0.01218989

2 2.238628993 30.84956629 0.013825733

3 0.919176212 215.8173853 0.005571801

4 1.08104874 138.5883175 0.008219951

5 1.16532896 115.0505145 0.009689978

Canola oil

Ball Cd Re μ

1 13.42758773 2.505641102 0.127074232

2 32.54204831 0.895421331 0.122951904

3 9.399025081 3.889724005 0.092116877

4 11.48173147 3.032325492 0.109069315

5 10.12938102 3.541394573 0.100410635


ChE 135 Process Engineering Laboratory Formal Report

Dishwashing Liquid

Ball Cd Re μ

1 26828.85727 0.000865442 8.580934567

2 618507.0612 3.73109E-05 21.70919693

3 12174.45645 0.001914354 5.358051794

4 14910.22221 0.001561369 6.077091897

5 19490.14703 0.001192912 7.047073839

You might also like