Results

Velocity Re Body base surface facing upstream

Rigid Rod Length= 0.0132 m
Drag Force Frontal Area= 2.4x10-3m2
Fd(N) Drag Force, Net Force, Drag
Fd(N) Fd(N) Coefficicent,Cd
8 6820.96 0.014 0.129 0.115 1.260
10 8526.20 0.032 0.205 0.173 1.213
12 10231.43 0.039 0.304 0.265 1.290
14 11936.67 0.060 0.423 0.363 1.300
16 13641.91 0.072 0.466 0.394 1.079
18 15347.15 0.096 0.716 0.620 1.342
20 17052.39 0.122 0.886 0.764 1.339
Average 1.260

Tablexx: Results for body base surface facing upstream

Velocity Re Body base surface facing downstream

Rigid Rod Length= 0.0132 m
Drag Frontal Area= 2.4x10-3m2
Force,Fd(N) Drag Force, Net Force, Drag
Fd(N) Fd(N) Coefficicent,Cd
8 6820.96 0.014 0.070 0.056 0.6135
10 8526.20 0.032 0.128 0.096 0.6731
12 10231.43 0.039 0.205 0.166 0.8083
14 11936.67 0.060 0.280 0.220 0.7870
16 13641.91 0.072 0.355 0.283 0.7751
18 15347.15 0.096 0.468 0.372 0.8050
20 17052.39 0.122 0.588 0.466 0.8169
Average 0.7541

Tablexx:Results for body base surface facing downstream

Sample of calculation:

Air density, ρ = 1.1885 kg/m3

Frontal Area of prism facing upstream= 2.4 x10-3 m2

Air dynamic viscosity, μ = 1.84x10-5 kg/m.s

Length = 0.0132 m
(T = 24 °C)

 Calculation to find Drag Coefficient, CD using formula given theoretically:

𝐹𝑑
𝐶𝑑 =
0.5𝜌𝑉 2 𝐴

For velocity=8 m/s

0.115
𝐶𝑑 =
0.5(1.1885)(82 )(2.4𝑋10−3 )

= 1.260

 Then, to find the Reynold Number using formula below:

𝜌𝑣𝑙
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇

(1.1885)(8)(0.0132)
=
(1.84𝑥10−5 )

= 6820.96

The same step is used to find all the value of Drag Coefficient, Cd and Reynold’s Number
 Graph of Drag Coefficient against
Reynolds Number
1.6

1.4

1.2
Drag Coefficient

0.8
Upstream
0.6
Downstream
0.4

0.2

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Reynolds Number

(FigureXX: Graph of Drag Coefficient against Reynolds Number)

Percentage Error:
(i) Upstream

𝐶𝑑 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝐶𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
= 𝑥100%
𝐶𝑑 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
2.20−1.26
= x 100%
2.20

=42.73%

(ii) Downstream

𝐶𝑑 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝐶𝑑 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
= 𝑥100%
𝐶𝑑 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
1.55−0.7541
= 𝑥100%
1.55

=51.35%
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this experiment was to measure the drag coefficient of the prism in a range
of air velocities from 8m/s to 20m/s. As the wind pass the prism, a drag force was applied to
the prism and the value of drag was measured using an old-school lever weight balance.
Theoretically, something that has low drag coefficient has better aerodynamics properties
which is vital in aeronautics and automotive industries as drag force is like a friction between
a fluid and a solid body where it plays an important role in determining the efficiencies of the
mechanism. Another important perimeter is Reynolds number where it determines the state of
the fluid flow whether it is laminar, turbulence, or a combination of both.
As Reynolds number is highly affected by the velocity of the fluid, it can be seen in the
results that when the velocity increased, the value of Reynolds number also increases. So,
instead of using velocity as the parameter in the graph, Reynolds number is more relevant as
it considers all elements such as fluid density and dynamics viscosity.
So, based on the graph of drag coefficient against Reynolds number, both upstream and
downstream had relatively steady graph although upstream graph had sudden fluctuation for
Reynolds number value of 13,641.91. Theoretically, the drag coefficient should be the same
value for each value of Reynolds number as by referring to the formula of drag coefficient,
the only value that changed were drag force and velocity, so these two values should rise
synchronically which give a steady pattern of the graph. But, in reality, other factors need to
be considered such as the method of measuring the drag force and how it was conducted.
Besides that, the adjustment of the steel block on the lever balance need serious skills to
obtain the most accurate measurement as the apparatus was easily affected even by the tiniest
movement and some gush of winds. Presence of frictional force on the lever arm also made it
hard to obtain accurate results.
The graph also showed that the prism facing upstream had larger drag coefficient than the
prism facing downstream. This result is theoretically correct because the concave shape of the
upstream prism caused the air to accumulate momentarily inside the concave shape thus
exerting more drag on the body. Meanwhile, for the downstream prism, the sharp edge of the
prism facing the wind flow would cut across the streamline of the wind, thus smoothen the air
flow through the prism. As a result, drag force is minimal and that is why this kind of prism
orientation is usually used in the design of boat and ship hull as it can cut across the sea
waves with minimal drag.

CONCLUSION
Throughout the experiment, drag coefficient over a range of velocities were successfully
determined. It was also found that even small size object also have drag force exerted on it as
proven by the measurement of the rigid rode drag force, so design consideration for a
structure to be aerodynamically efficient need to note even the smallest parts. The relation
between Reynolds number and drag coefficient was portrayed successfully with the use of
graph and the steady pattern of both upstream and downstream graph proved that this
experiment was successful. Some modification can be made to the experiment such as using
digital balance to measure the drag force which can reduce human error on reading the scale.