Getting 'negative' force when calculating drag

In summary, the speaker is trying to add flight physics to a 3D game and is having trouble with calculating drag. They have set up a scenario with a falling sheet and noticed that if they make the sheet very large and light, the drag force can actually push it upwards. They are using a formula to calculate drag, but are unsure if it is correct. They also want to give users the ability to change the scale of drag and gravity using a multiplier, but are concerned that it may cause issues. The speaker receives advice to calculate using Newton's Law of motion and to use a smaller time step size to avoid convergence problems. They are also advised to use a Runge Kutta method instead of a simple Euler method.
  • #1
LegendLength
21
1
I'm trying to add flight physics to a 3d game. When I try to calculate drag I sometimes get a force that pushes the aircraft backwards if I make the wingspan very large (for example).

I have set up a simple scenario: A flat rectangle sheet falling down due to gravity. If I make the gravity force artificially low, or the size of the sheet very large (and light), then the drag force is so large that it actually pushes the sheet upwards.

The formula I am using is:

drag = dragCoefficent * 0.5 * airDensity * (velocity ^ 2) * sheetArea

(dragCoefficent is sheetArea * 1.05)

Just by looking at the formula I can see that if you make the area large enough then the force will be huge and counteract gravity to such a degree that the object goes upwards, rather than tends towards zero velocity.

So what happens if you are on a planet with very low gravity and drop a large, light sheet of metal from a height? Assuming the sheet stays horizontal you would assume it just falls extremely slowly. Yet the formula doesn't seem to reflect that. Am I missing something obvious or is it perhaps the wrong formula?

I want the ability for users to change the scale of drag, gravity etc. with a multiplier. But maybe that is a silly idea because that is what produces this problem in the first place?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
LegendLength said:
So what happens if you are on a planet with very low gravity and drop a large, light sheet of metal from a height? Assuming the sheet stays horizontal you would assume it just falls extremely slowly. Yet the formula doesn't seem to reflect that. Am I missing something obvious or is it perhaps the wrong formula?
The formula is correct. It seems that you are missing or mishandling the velocity. If g is low then the gravitational force will balance the drag force at a very low v, and you will get the correct behavior.

In the formula v is the relative velocity between the fluid and the object, and the drag force is in the direction of v.
 
  • #3
If the body enters the atmosphere at a velocity higher than the terminal velocity then the net force is opposite to the direction of velocity. So upwards if the velocity is downwards. This does not mean the body moves upwards but simply that the acceleration is negative, the velocity decreases.
On the other hand, if the body starts from rest and gravity is the only other force, beside drag, this situation will never happen.
 
  • #4
LegendLength said:
Just by looking at the formula...
You should rather calculate it using Newtons Law of motion. Also, in numerical integration you need a sufficiently small step size.
 
  • #5
Thanks for the replies. It seems my problem is the time step size as suggested.

For example if you have a 1000 meter square, 1 kg sail moving downwards at 1 m/s, it gives an upward force of around half a million N. That is obviously stronger than the downwards force of gravity. My mistake was to apply that force during a single time step which gave it a huge upwards velocity. The next time step comes around and notices the object is going very fast upwards so the drag becomes huge downwards etc..

I guess I need to look at the way game developers handle high forces. I don't know much about numerical integration so I'll look at that too. Thanks again.
 
  • #6
What you describe sounds like a simple Euler method. Those are known to have this kind of convergence problem. You can probably fix it using a Runge Kutta method instead
 
  • #7
That was exactly the problem, thanks.
 

1. How is "negative" force calculated in drag equations?

When calculating drag, the force is typically represented as a vector with magnitude and direction. The negative force is simply the component of the force vector that acts in the opposite direction of the motion of the object. This can be calculated using trigonometric functions such as cosine and sine.

2. Why do we sometimes get a negative force when calculating drag?

A negative force in drag calculations can occur when the direction of the force vector is opposite to the direction of the motion of the object. This often happens when the object is moving in a fluid medium, such as air or water, and experiences resistance in the opposite direction.

3. How does negative force affect an object's motion?

The presence of negative force due to drag can slow down the motion of an object. This is because the negative force acts in the opposite direction of the object's motion, causing it to experience resistance and lose kinetic energy.

4. Can negative force be eliminated in drag calculations?

No, negative force is a fundamental aspect of drag calculations and cannot be eliminated. It represents the resistance that an object experiences when moving through a fluid medium and is necessary to accurately describe the object's motion.

5. Is negative force always present in drag calculations?

Negative force is not always present in drag calculations, but it is often significant in situations where an object is moving through a fluid medium. In some cases, the negative force may be relatively small and can be ignored, but it should always be taken into consideration when calculating drag.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
370
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
743
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Mechanics
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
320
  • Classical Physics
Replies
28
Views
769
Back
Top