Department of :Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

MECH 213 Measurement Lab

Section: L01
[Spring 2021]

Experiment (5): Centrifugal Force

Submitted by: Group (3):

1. Name: Naif Almarri ID: 201407133
2. Name: Muhammed Shuaib Mohamed Faleel ID: 201808325
3. Name: Mostafa Mohamed Elborary ID: 201807020
4. Name: Hamed Dajran ID: 201609348

Instructor: Dr. Mohamed Al Khawaja

Submitted to: Eng. Mohamed Al Subaey

Date of experiment:
Date of submission: 07/04/2021
Data:
The data was provided in CSV format, taken directly from centrifugal apparatus. It shows
experimental centrifugal, or centripetal force (as both are equal) against time. The photogate
readings are taken at GateState value ‘1’. Each photogate reading represents the increment
of 36° or 0.628 Radians. As there are 1576 readings from software, a sample is shown here.
Detailed data is presented in excel sheet.

Table 1 Sample Provided Data

Time (s) Force (N) GateState

0 -0.011  
0.02 0.007  
0.04 0.014  
0.06 0.02  
0.74 0.007  
0.76 -0.005  
0.78 0.001  
0.8 0.001  
0.82 0.014  
1.02 0.001  
1.04 0.007  
1.06 0.158  
1.063611 0.139945 0
1.07934 0.359549746 1
1.08 0.058  
1.1 0.648  
1.108394 5.5211367 0
1.116877 7.329568465 1
1.12 12.259  
1.14 12.259  
1.143402 11.9172691 0
1.152145 11.05952847 1
1.16 10.25  
1.178474 8.476496 0
1.18 8.33  
1.187038 8.6966798 1
1.2 9.372  
1.212616 9.264764 0
1.22 9.202  
1.221358 9.1014401 1
1.24 7.721  
1.247414 9.3661666 0
1.256665 9.054118781 1
Calculations:
As discussed earlier, the data consists of various readings for which each GateState value ‘1’
represents increment of 0.628 rad in angular displacement (θ). If number of GateState
readings are represented by ‘N’; then angular displacement at each Photogate reading (at one
of 10 slots in circular disc) is given by;
θ ( Rad ) =0.628 × N−−−−Eq (1 )
Now, instantaneous angular velocity is given by;
δθ
ω= −−−−Eq ( 2 a )
δt
As, time increments are very small, so angular velocity is created using time interval between
each photogate reading;
∆θ
ω= −−−− Eq ( 2 b )
∆t
Where;
∆ t = Time interval between two GateState readings;
∆ θ = Change in angular displacement between each GateState reading = 0.628 Rad (for two
consecutive GateState Readings)
As values of Force are not provided, when GateState readings are taken, so that they are
calculated at that instants using interpolation through the formula;
F2−F 0
F exp=F 0+ ( t−t 0 ) −−−−Eq ( 3 )
t 2−t 0
Where; F = Force at desired point, when GateState readings are taken.
t = Time at that desired instant;
t 0 = Time reading at previous point, where force is known;

F 0 = Force reading at t 0;

t 2 = Time reading at next point, where force is known;

F 2 = Force reading at t 2.

By doing thorough interpolation through all the readings force values are known at points,
where angular velocity is to be calculated (GateState value ‘1’, whose angular displacement
is known).
Theoretical centrifugal force is evaluated using;

F th =M a × r × ω2−−−−Eq ( 4 )
Where, M a = Mass of each body attached at two ends of the circular disk = 200 g =0.2 kg.
r = Radius of circular disk = 14 cm = 0.14 m.
The data readings other than GateState ‘1’ are filtered out using FILTER command. Then
using above formulas, angular velocity and theoretical force against each GateState reading is
evaluated using time span between that particular consecutive time interval.

Results:
Sample results are shown in table 2. As there are 337 entries for GateState ‘1’,so complete
calculated results are shown in excel sheet. A sample result sheet is shown below;
Table 2 Sample Results Showing Angular Velocity and Theoretical Centrifugal Force
 As during the initial state; the disk rotates irregularly and abruptly, so experimental and
theoretical results didn’t coincide. Thus, initial few readings for disk are also filtered out to
Table 3 Modified Results and Data for Plots

get smooth curves between experimental and theoretical forces against square of angular
velocity.

Sample Calculations:
For Reading number 3 in Table 3;
t=1.360886 s
t 0=1.326078 s
F 0=8.515 N
t 2=1.397 s
F 2=9.136 N

 Experimental Centrifugal Force;

Thus experimental force at t = 1.360886 s is calculated using;

 F2−F 0
F exp=F 0+ ( t−t 0 )
t 2−t 0
9.136 N−8.515 N
F exp=8.515 N + ( 1.360886 s−1.326078 s )
1.397 s−1.326078 s
F exp=8.905 N
Note; This is just a sample. Actual interpolation is done using excel formulas for original data, not
for only filtered data to minimize error.

 Angular Distance;

Since N = 9 in this case;

So, angular distance is computed as;
θ=0.628 × N=0.628× 9
θ=5.652 Rad
 Angular Velocity;

As angular velocity is calculated as;

∆θ
ω=
∆t
θ−θ 0 5.652 Rad−5.024 Rad 0.628 Rad
ω= = =
t−t 0 1.360886 s−1.326078 s 0.034808 s
ω=18.04183 Rad / s
 Theoretical Centrifugal Force;

It is calculated as;

F th =M a × r × ω2

F th=( 0.2 kg ) × ( 0.14 m ) × ( 18.04183 Rad / s )2

F th =9.1142 N

 Percentage Error;

Percentage error is computed as;

F th −F exp
% error= ×10 0−−−−Eq ( 5 )
F th
9.1142 N−8.905 N
% error= × 100
9.1142 N
Percentage Error=2.299 %
Graphs Plotted:
i. Experimental Centrifugal Force ( F exp) vs. Squared Angular Velocity(ω 2)

Experimental Force (N) vs. ω2(rad/s)2

10
9 f(x) = 0.03 x + 0.19
R² = 1
8
Experimental Force (N)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ω2(rad/s)2

Figure 1 A plot of Experimental Centrifugal Force and Squared Angular Velocity

ii. Theoretical Centrifugal Force ( F th

) vs. Squared Angular Velocity(ω 2)
 Theoretical Force (N) vs. ω2(rad/s)2
10
9
f(x) = 0.03 x
8
Theoretical Force (N)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ω2(rad/s)2

Figure 2 A plot of Theoretical Centrifugal Force and Squared Angular Velocity

iii. Both Theoretical and Experimental Centrifugal Force vs. Squared Angular Velocity( ω 2)

Force (N) vs. ω2(rad/s)2

10
9
8
7
6
Force (N)

5
4
3
2
1
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ω2(rad/s)2

Experimental Force (N) Theoretical Force (N)

Figure 3 A plot of Experimental and Theoretical Centrifugal Force and Squared Angular Velocity

 Least Squares Correlation Curve for Experimental Plot

 This method is used to establish the best fit curve between independent and dependent
variables. Excel simply computes the best fit curve using Trendline menu in the plot, and
its equation is written as;
y = 0.0284x + 0.1856
i.e.

F exp=0.0284 ω 2+ 0.1856
And its correlation coefficient is given as;
R² = 0.998
It is also computed using CORREL( F exp, ω 2) function. And turns out to be;
Correlation Coefficient = R² = 0.99898
Moreover least squares method is also applied, through which Slope, intercept and correlation
coefficient for linear regression is computed through following formulae;
N N N

Slope=m=
N × ∑ x i y i−
i=1
N
[( )(∑ )]
∑ xi
i=1
N
i=1
2
yi
−−−−Eq ( 6 )
N × ∑ ( xi ) −
i=1
2
(∑ )
i=1
xi

In our case; it becomes;

N N N

Slope=m=
N × ∑ ( ω 2 ) ( F exp ) −
i=1
N
[( )(∑ )]
∑ ω2
i=1
N
i=1
2
F exp
−−−−Eq ( 6 b )
N ×∑ (ω ) −
i=1
2 2
(∑ )i=1
ω2

And intercept is calculated as;

N N

∑ y i−Slope × ∑ x i
Intercept=c= i=1 i=1
−−−−Eq ( 7 )
N
In our case;
N N

∑ F exp−m× ∑ ω2
Intercept=c= i=1 i =1
−−−−Eq ( 7 b )
N
Finally; correlation coefficient is calculated as;
 N N N

CorrelationCoefficient =r =
∑
i=1
[( ∑ ( x i− x́ )
i=1

N
)(∑ (
N
i=1
y i− ý ) )] −−−−Eq ( 8 )

√∑ (
i=1
xi − x́ )
2
∑ ( y i − ý )
i=1
2

In our case, N = 331; various columns are created for evaluation of slope, intercept and
correlation coefficient using method of least squares as shown in table below;
Table 4 Sample Data for Linear Fit using Least Squares Method

Table 5 Final Summation Results for Linear Regression (Least Square Fit Data)

Final results for slope, intercept and correlation coefficient using above formulae are given in
Table 6.

Table 6 Final Results for Linear Fit of Data F exp vs . ω2

Slope Intercept Correlation

(kgm) (N) Coefficient
0.0284
0.1855609 0.998978938
4

Discussions and Conclusions:

  Figure 1 represent the relation between the experimental mass flow rate and the
square root of the values of ∆ h.
The equation obtained from the graph is:

1
ṁ Experimental =0.3312 ( h A −hB ) 2
1
ṁTheoretical=0.962 ( h A−hB ) 2
Comparing the slopes of the two equation, we can notice that there is a huge

0.962−0.3312
difference with 65.57 % ( × 100 ¿ which is not expected, as the
0.962
experimental slope should be close to 0.962, which means there should be an error
occurred while doing the experiment which will be discussed in the following
paragraph.

 The calibration curve of the venturi meter in Figure 2 represents the relation between
the mass flow rate obtained from the venturi meter equation and the experimental
mass flow rate from the weighing tank method. It can be noticed that the slope is
2.8863 (the theoretical mass flow rate is about 2.8863 times greater than the
experimental one) , which is not as expected, because ideally the slope should be 1,
the theoretical and experimental mass flow rate should be equal, so it does not
conform to the expected behavior. The error could come from two main sources
which are the: error in obtaining the experimental mass flow rate, and error occurred
from the experimental while reading the heights from the venturi meter (which is less
likely because human errors cannot reach huge error percentage as we got from the
results). The experimental flow rate error could be either from the experimenter while
measuring the time (human error; less likely) or there could be a leakage in the
weighing tank. We should be getting higher mass flow rates from the experiments,
which means that the time should be much lower than the one we have, therefore, a
leakage could have occurred in the tank, and this leakage will increase the time for
each experiment, as we will be waiting more time till the beam rises to its horizontal
position.