How does air resistance change with acceleration?

AI Thread Summary
Air resistance, or drag, is influenced by velocity, complicating calculations for accelerating projectiles. The standard drag equation, F_drag = 1/2 P v^2 C_d A, becomes less effective when the projectile is under acceleration, as it alters the initial velocity. A differential equation approach is suggested, leading to numerical solutions like Euler's Method or 4th Order Runge-Kutta for more accurate results. Calculating air drag at discrete time intervals can help account for changing speeds during acceleration. Ultimately, integrating the force analytically is challenging, necessitating numerical methods for accurate position and time calculations.
-JammyDodger-
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello and thanks to all who read this. Recently I've just been messing around with air drag equations, trying to extend applied maths problems to include air drag. And I've hit a road block, at least with regards to my knowledge anyway.

I've been using the F_drag = 1/2 P (mass density of fluid) v^2 C_d (drag coefficient) A (area). But my problem with this equation is it's dependence on velocity. If I were to use this equation on a projectile which is under acceleration (under gravity, and also the air drag would slow down the velocity) it would change the initial velocity, making the equation useless to me (I think).

I guessed that air drag on an accelerating body would require a differential equation, so I tried to go about making one.

F = c.v^2 (c is just the constant of pressure, area and drag coefficient etc in the drag equation)

So, I got...
dP/dt = c.v^2
m(dv/dt) = c.v^2
dv/v^2 = c/m dt

Then I went about integrating this trying to get some kind of an equation. But to no avail. I don't have a great physics knowledge as I'm only in school; so could someone be so kind as to help me get an equation which could calculate the air drag on a body that is undergoing acceleration.

I don't know if I'm making much sense in this post; but thanks anyway!

Just thinking about it there: would the best method be to calculate the air drag on the projectile at various time intervals? I.e. every second, then recalculate the air drag at the new lower speed, then, a second later recalculate again? If you get what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm pretty sure you can't integrate the force analytically when you have a ~v2 force term. So this would require a numerical solution to calculate the position vs. time.

Just thinking about it there: would the best method be to calculate the air drag on the projectile at various time intervals? I.e. every second, then recalculate the air drag at the new lower speed, then, a second later recalculate again?

Yes, that is the basic idea. There are algorithms of varying sophistication for doing this.

The simplest way is known as Euler's Method. Given x1 and v1, calculate x2 and v2 at a time Δt later as follows:

x2 = x1 + v1Δt + (1/2) a Δt2
and
v2 = v1 + a Δt

where "a" is calculated from F/m, given F(t, x1, v1)

Euler's Method is fairly easily entered into Excel (if you're familiar with it). A more involved, but also more accurate, method is 4th Order Runge-Kutta.

Regards,

Mark
 
Note that your equation for drag is an approximation at low sub-sonic speeds. In the case of ballistics (bullets, cannon shells, high speed aircraft), there are no simple equations and instead tables (of coefficients) are used.
 
Redbelly98 said:
I'm pretty sure you can't integrate the force analytically when you have a ~v2 force term. So this would require a numerical solution to calculate the position vs. time.



Yes, that is the basic idea. There are algorithms of varying sophistication for doing this.

The simplest way is known as Euler's Method. Given x1 and v1, calculate x2 and v2 at a time Δt later as follows:

x2 = x1 + v1Δt + (1/2) a Δt2
and
v2 = v1 + a Δt

where "a" is calculated from F/m, given F(t, x1, v1)

Euler's Method is fairly easily entered into Excel (if you're familiar with it). A more involved, but also more accurate, method is 4th Order Runge-Kutta.

Regards,

Mark

Dont do this. It won't work
 
One site with interesting explanations and formulas is

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~numb3rs/lipa/end_of_watch.html

You want the formula under VERTICAL MOTION which reflects acceleration due to gravity... but this formula is for uniform (constant) acceleration...I assume that's what you want...you'll note there the drag force is an exponential function of time and drag coefficient.

OR ...Try Googling "air resistance as a function of acceleration" ..lots of hits...
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top