Aboubakr Belkaïd University – Tlemcen –

Faculty of Technology
Sector: Mechanical Engineering L2

TP 07 Fluid Mechanics
Jet Impact

- Presented by :
 Ikram Brahimi
 Hesna Ziani
 Souna mohammed reda

Group:G12 B
Academic year:2024/2025
1-Introduction:
The study of the impact of a jet on different obstacles is essential in fluid mechanics and
engineering. An experimental test bench makes it possible to measure the forces and
pressures exerted by a jet on various obstacles. This device includes a jet source, obstacles of
different shapes and measuring instruments. The objective is to analyze physical phenomena
and apply the results to the design of hydraulic systems and turbines. The data contains the
theoretical models and optimizes machine performance. This study opens perspectives for
future research, particularly on turbulent jets and innovative materials.
2- Objective of the experiment:
Objective of the Experiment The primary objective of this experiment is to measure and
analyze the impact of a fluid jet on various obstacles using a test bench. This involves:
1. Quantifying the force and pressure exerted by the jet on different obstacle shapes and
surfaces.
2. Understanding the fluid dynamics and energy transfer during the impact.
3. Validating theoretical models with experimental data.
4. Providing practical insights for designing and optimizing hydraulic systems , turbines, and
other fluid-based machinery.
5. Exploring how different obstacle geometries influence the jet's behavior and energy
dissipation. This experiment aims to bridge theoretical knowledge with real-world
applications, contributing to advancements in fluid mechanics and engineering.

3- Materials used:
Jet Impact Device:
Jet Impact Apparatus – A setup with different obstacles (flat plate, hemispherical cup, etc.) to
measure the force exerted by the jet.

Water Supply System – A controlled water source providing a steady flow.

Flow Meter – To measure the flow rate Q (l/min or m³/s).

Weighing Scale – To measure the weight W (g) of the impact force.

Force Measurement System – A mechanism (spring balance or load cell) to measure the
reaction force Fth (N).

Jet Nozzle – To direct the water stream at a specific velocity.

Measuring Cylinder or Beaker – For flow rate calibration if needed.

Stopwatch – To measure time intervals for flow calculations.

4-How it works:

Jet Formation: Water flows through a nozzle, creating a high-speed jet.

Impact on Surface: The jet strikes a deflector (plate, hemisphere, or angled surface) and
changes direction.

Force Measurement: The reaction force ( Fth) is calculated from momentum change and
compared with experimental values.

Efficiency Analysis: Comparing theoretical and experimental forces helps determine efficiency
(Err).

This experiment demonstrates momentum transfer principles used in turbines, hydraulics, and
aerospace systems.

5- Theoretical Work:
The theoretical force exerted by a jet on a surface is derived from the
principle of momentum conservation. The reaction force depends on
the flow rate (Q), water density (ρ), and surface

2. Theoretical Force Equations for Different Angles

  For α =90 ° (Flat Plate):
2
ρQ
F th90= (N)
Sj

 For α =110 ° (Flat Plate):

2
3 ρQ
F t h 110= (N)
2 Sj

 For α =180 ° (Flat Plate):

2
ρQ
F t h 18 0=2 (N)
Sj

Where:

 ρ=¿Density of water (kg/m3)

 Q= Flow rate (m3 /s )
 S j= Jet cross-sectional area (m2)

3. Efficiency Calculation

The efficiency of force transfer is given by:

|W (N )−Fth ( N)|
Er r = ×100 (%)
❑
W (N )

 W measured = Experimental weight force (N)

 F theoretical= Calculated theoretical force (N)

This theoretical framework helps compare expected vs. actual forces in the
experiment.
α =90 ° Table for /1

Q W90 W90 Fth90 Err90

No
)l/mn( )g( )N( )N( )%(
Con
ver
ns 1 7.48 50 0.49 0.26 46.93 sio
m 2 10.60 70 0.69 0.54 21.73 fro
(g)
3 0.92
W90
° 13.62 100 0.98 6.12
α =90
W90 to
4 14.43 120 1.17 1.07 8.54
:(N)
5 15.84 140 1.37 1.24 9.48

w=m . g (N)

1) −3
50 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.49 (N)

2) −3
70 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.69 (N)

3) −3
100 ×10 × 9.81=¿0.98 (N)
4) −3
120 ×10 × 9.81=¿1.17 (N)
5) −3
140 ×10 × 9.81=¿1.37 (N)

2
ρQ
Calculation of Fth 90(N) : F th 90=
Sj (N)
Whereby: 1) Q= 7.48 (l/mn) = 1.16×10−4 (m3 /s )
2) Q= 10.60 (l/mn) = 1.66×10−4 (m3 /s )
3) Q= 13.62 (l/mn) = 2.16×10−4 (m3 / s )
4) Q= 14.43 (l/mn) = 2.33×10−4 (m3 /s )
5) Q= 15.84 (l/mn) = 2.5×10−4 (m3 / s )

Density of water: ρ=103 ; D j=0.008

⇒
2 2
π Dj 3.14 ×(¿0.008)
S j= S j= ¿
4 4
 S j=5.03 ×10 ¿m)
−5

=0.26 (N)
−4 2
10 ( 1.16 ×10 )
3

1/ F th 90=
5.03 ×10
−5

(N)
−4 2
10 ( 1.66 ×10 )
3

2/ F th 90=
5.03 ×10
−5
=0.54

(N)
−4 2
10 ( 2.16 ×10 )
3

3/ F th 90=
5.03 ×10
−5
=0.92

(N)
−4 2
10 ( 2.33 ×10 )
3

4/ F th 9 0=
5.03 ×10
−5
=1.07

(N)
−4 2
10 ( 2.5 ×10 )
3

5/ F th 90=
5.03 ×10
−5
=1.24

: )%( Calculation of Err 90

|W 90(N )−F th90 (N)|

Er r = ×100
90
W 90( N )
|0.49−0.26|
1/ Er r 90
=
0.49
×100=46.93(%)

|0.69−0.54|
2/ Er r = 90
0.69
×100=21.73 ( % )

|0.98−0.92|
3/ Er r = 90
0.98
× 100=6.12 ( % )

|1.17−1.07|
4/ Er r =
90
1.17
× 100=8.54(%)

|1.37−1.24|
5/ Er r = 90
1.37
×100=9.48 ( % )
α =110 ° Table for /2

Q W110 W110 Fth110 Err110

No
)l/mn( )g( )N( )N( )%(

1 8.41 50 0.49 0.527 7.55

2 9.76 70 0.69 0.670 2.89

°
3 11.13 100 0.98 0.998 1.83
α =110

4 13.02 120 1.17 1.391 1.88

5 14.06 140 1.37 1.618 1.81

:Conversions from W 110 (g) to W 110 (N)

w=m . g (N)

1) −3
50 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.49 (N)

2) −3
70 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.69 (N)

3) −3
100 ×10 × 9.81=¿0.98 (N)
4) −3
120 ×10 × 9.81=¿1.17 (N)
5) −3
140 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 1.37 (N)

2
3 ρQ
Calculation of Fth 110(N) : F th 110=
2 Sj (N)
Whereby: 1) Q= 8.41 (l/mn) = 1.33×10−4 (m3 /s )
2) Q= 9.76 (l/mn) = 1.5×10−4 (m3 /s )
3) Q= 11.13 (l/mn) = 1.83×10−4 (m3 / s )
4) Q= 13.02 (l/mn) = 2.16×10−4 (m3 /s )
5) Q= 14.06 (l/mn) = 2.33×10−4 (m3 / s )

Density of water: ρ=103 ; D j=0.008 (m)

 ⇒
2 2
π Dj 3.14 ×(¿0.008)

S j=5.03 ×10 ¿m)

S j= S j= ¿
4 4
−5

=0.527 (N)
−4 2
3 10 ( 1.33 ×10 )
3

1/ F th110= ×
2 5.03× 10
−5

(N)
−4 2
3 10 ( 1.5 ×10 )
3

2/ F th110= ×
2 5.03× 10
−5
=0.670

(N)
−4 2
3 10 ( 1.83 ×10 )
3

3/ F th110= ×
2 5.03× 10
−5
=0.998

(N)
−4 2
3 10 ( 2.16 × 10 )
3

4/ F th110= ×
2 5.03 ×10
−5
=1.391

(N)
−4 2
3 10 ( 2.33× 10 )
3

5/ F th1 10= ×
2 5.03 ×10
−5
=1.618

: )%( Calculation of Err 110

Er r =
|W 110 ( N )−F th 110 ( N )| × 100
110
W 110 ( N )

|0.49−0.527|
1/ Er r = 110
0.49
×100=7.55(%)

|0.69−0.670|
2/ Er r = 110
0.69
×100=2.89 ( % )

|0.98−0.998|
3/ Er r = 110
0.98
×100=1.83 ( % )

|1.17−1.391|
4/ Er r =
110
1.17
×100=18.88(%)
 |1.37−1.618|
5/ Er r =
110
1.37
×100=18.10 ( % )

3/ Table for α =180 °

Q W180 W180 Fth180 Err180
No
)l/mn( )g( )N( )N( )%(

1 7.45 50 0.49 0.535 9.183

2 8.01 70 0.69 0.703 1.884

°
3 10.01 100 0.98 1.095 11.73 4
α =180

4 10.83 120 1.17 1.095 6.410

5 11.70 140 1.37 1.331 2.846

:Conversions from W 180 (g) to W 180 (N)

w=m . g (N)

1) −3
50 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.49 (N)

2) −3
70 ×10 × 9.81=¿ 0.69 (N)

3) −3
100 ×10 × 9.81=¿0.98 (N)
4) −3
120 ×10 × 9.81=¿1.17 (N)
5) −3
140 ×10 × 9.81=¿1.37 (N)
2
2 ρQ
Calculation of Fth 180(N) : F th180=
Sj (N)
Whereby: 1) Q= 7.45(l/mn) = 1.16×10−4 (m3 / s )
2) Q= 8.01 (l/mn) = 1.33×10−4 (m3 / s )
3) Q= 10.01 (l/mn) = 1.66×10−4 (m3 /s )
4) Q= 10.83 (l/mn) = 1.66×10−4 (m3 / s )
5) Q= 11.70 (l/mn) =1.83×10−4 (m3 /s )
 Density of water: ρ=103 ; D j=0.008(m)

⇒
2 2
π Dj 3.14 ×(¿0.008)

S j=5.03 ×10 ¿m)

S j= S j= ¿
4 4
−5

=0.535(N)
−4 2
2× 10 ( 1.16× 10 )
3

1/ F th180=
5.03 ×10
−5

(N)
−4 2
2× 10 ( 1.33× 10 )
3

2/ F th180=
5.03 ×10
−5
=0.703

(N)
−4 2
2× 10 ( 1.66× 10 )
3

3/ F th180=
5.03 ×10
−5
=1.095

(N)
−4 2
2× 10 ( 1.66× 10 )
3

4/ F th180=
5.03 ×10
−5
=1.095

(N)
−4 2
2× 10 ( 1.83× 10 )
3

5/ F th180=
5.03 ×10
−5
=1.331

: )%( Calculation of Err 180

Er r =
|W 180 ( N )−F th 180 ( N )| ×100
180
W 180 ( N )

|0.49−0.535|
1/ Er r = 180
0.49
× 100=9.183 (%)

|0.69−0.703|
2/ Er r = 180
0.69
× 100=1.884 ( % )

|0.98−1.095|
3/ Er r = 180
0.98
×100=11.73 4 ( % )

|1.17−1.095|
4/ Er r =
180
1.17
×100=6.410( %)
 |1.37−1.331|
5/ Er r =
180
1.37
×100=2.846 ( % )

6/Commentary on the Graphs

1. Comparison Between Theoretical and Experimental Forces

 The plotted graphs show a clear discrepancy between the theoretical force
values and the experimentally measured forces .
 Theoretical force values are always higher than experimental ones due to
unavoidable real-world factors such as energy dissipation, water splashing, and
frictional losses within the system.
 Among the three angles (90°, 110°, and 180°), the 90° configuration shows the
largest deviation between theoretical and experimental forces. This is likely due
to the significant dispersion of water upon impact, leading to force losses.
 The 110° configuration exhibits a moderate deviation, where the jet impact is
more efficiently redirected compared to 90°, but still has losses due to angular
dispersion.
 The 180° configuration provides the closest match between theoretical and
experimental forces, as the jet is redirected entirely backward, maintaining
more of its momentum in the reaction force. However, some force is still lost due
to turbulence and imperfect reflection of the water stream.

2. Error Analysis Across Different Angles

 The error percentage is significantly higher for the 90° impact, indicating that the
force transmission is highly inefficient due to the spreading and loss of water
upon impact.
 The 110° impact shows a decrease in error percentage compared to 90°, as
the water is redirected more effectively, though still with some losses.
 The 180° impact has the lowest error percentage, as expected, since the force
is almost entirely reflected in the opposite direction. The deviation from theory is
mainly due to turbulence and minor water dispersion.

3. Interpretation of Trends

 The general trend suggests that as the impact angle increases from 90° to 180°,
the system becomes more efficient at redirecting force, reducing the
percentage of energy lost.
 The 90° case results in greater lateral dispersion, leading to a higher percentage
of energy lost compared to cases where the jet is redirected more smoothly (110°
and 180°).
  The highest force values and the lowest percentage errors occur in the 180°
configuration, where momentum conservation is most effective.

7/Conclusion
 The experiment successfully demonstrates that impact angle plays a crucial
role in force transmission efficiency in jet impact scenarios.
 Theoretical calculations provide an idealized view, but real-world
conditions introduce energy losses that reduce the experimentally
measured forces.
 The 180° setup is the most efficient, while the 90° setup exhibits the greatest
force loss due to dispersion effects.
 These findings are relevant for industrial applications involving fluid dynamics,
such as turbine blade design, water jet deflectors, and hydraulic impact systems.
'