Finding the terminal velocity of a model rocket from a list of velocities

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around analyzing rocket data from a 20,000-foot launch to calculate terminal velocity and the drag coefficient. The user has time, altitude, and velocity data but struggles to graph the velocities effectively to identify terminal velocity. Suggestions include using Excel to calculate velocity as a function of height and focusing on the data from burnout to apogee, as drag coefficients differ during ascent and descent. There is a consensus that while calculating terminal velocity during coasting is challenging, it may be possible to estimate an upper bound for free fall terminal velocity. The user aims to validate the drag coefficient, which is typically around 0.75 but varies with different rocket designs.
  • #61
berkeman said:
Parashoots? LOL

So it won't deploy at 100mph nose down? Maybe boost the ejection charge for the chute?
Anyhow, I honestly thing we can figure it out from the data they have. But maybe they could just do an uncontrolled decent into earth on graduation day to verify calulations o0)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
the chute/shoot doesnt deploy for 24.6 seconds and apogee hits at 27.1 seconds. So the chute pops right before apogee. The chute is below the nose cone.

This image was a test launch to 1 mile
15 foot shock cord, 5 foot chute
HSfhvJiy412IS3IddecxIHPw2Q=w352-h625-no?authuser=0.jpg

i can get permission to allow a rocket to go ballistic but it has to be a smaller rocket haha.
as for the equation... Im not even sure where to start of what it would look like.
F=m(dv/dt)
F=drag -gravity
m(dv/dt)=Fd-mg

then not sure where to go from there haha
 
  • #63
LT72884 said:
the chute/shoot doesnt deploy for 24.6 seconds and apogee hits at 27.1 seconds. So the chute pops right before apogee. The chute is below the nose cone.

This image was a test launch to 1 mile
15 foot shock cord, 5 foot chute
View attachment 322976
i can get permission to allow a rocket to go ballistic but it has to be a smaller rocket haha.
:-p
LT72884 said:
as for the equation... Im not even sure where to start of what it would look like.
F=m(dv/dt)
F=drag -gravity
m(dv/dt)=Fd-mg

then not sure where to go from there haha
You're on the right track. On the way up which way is the drag force acting?
 
  • #64
erobz said:
:-p

You're on the right track. On the way up which way is the drag force acting?
on the way up drag should be pushing down, same with g, and mg.
some equations have Fr=bv, what is b?

if mass cancels out, then i can separate and then integrate. but from here, not sure
dv/(g-bv)=dt

then i get a crazy equation with e in it. if i take the limit as time gets large, vt is left
 
  • #65
LT72884 said:
on the way up drag should be pushing down, same with g, and mg.
Correct, so what is the sign in front of the ##F_d##?
LT72884 said:
some equations have Fr=bv, what is b?
Thats linear drag. Your rocket is only going to be in that regime for a short period of time.

For rockets (and most thing that fall through the air ) we typically use quadratic drag. They are both there, but quadratic drag dominates for higher speeds:

##F_d = \beta v^2##
LT72884 said:
if mass cancels out, then i can separate and then integrate. but from here, not sure
dv/(g-bv)=dt
Don't jump too far ahead. We won't actually have to solve the ODE to get what you are after (unless you want to afterward).
 
Last edited:
  • #66
erobz said:
Correct, so what is the sign in front of the ##F_d##?

Thats linear drag. Your rocket is only going to be in that regime for a short period of time.

For rockets (and most thing that fall through the air ) we typically use quadratic drag. They are both there, but quadratic drag dominates for higher speeds:

##F_d = \beta v^2##

Don't jump to far ahead. We won't actually have to solve the ODE to get what you are after (unless you want to afterward).
i have never seen the Fd=bv^2 equation... or i was not paying attention. I checked my fluids book and i do not see it....

ok, so lets go back. Fd should be negitive. so
m(dv/dt) = -Fd - mg
 
  • #67
LT72884 said:
i have never seen the Fd=bv^2 equation... or i was not paying attention. I checked my fluids book and i do not see it....

ok, so lets go back. Fd should be negitive. so
m(dv/dt) = -Fd - mg
It's in your fluid book somewhere. You should have a chapter about lift and drag. In mine its Chapter 11!
 
  • #68
erobz said:
It's in your fluid book somewhere. You should have a chapter about lift and drag.
ill try and find it. For now, i have the diff eq as shown above. Whats the next step?
thanks for all the help. Seeing this in a new way really solidifies the knowledge and understanding of what is really going on
 
  • #69
LT72884 said:
ill try and find it. For now, i have the diff eq as shown above. Whats the next step?
thanks for all the help. Seeing this in a new way really solidifies the knowledge and understanding of what is really going on
So you plug in the quadratic drag force to equation and divide through by ##m## and you will arrive at what I have written in post #40.

After that take a moment to study it and identify all the data that you have, or could calculate from the data you captured.
 
  • #70
erobz said:
So you plug in the quadratic drag force to equation and divide through by ##m## and you will arrive at what I have written in post #40.

After that take a moment to study it and identify all the data that you have, or could calculate from the data you captured.
ok, now i see how you get the equation from post 40, and where did quadratic drag force come from?
your book must be way better than my book. I just went through my section on drag which was 9.3, the rest of chp 9 was on flow. I think they picked this book because it focused more on stocks theorem and fluid flow. We spent one lecture on drag.

1677558597669.png
 
  • #71
LT72884 said:
ok, now i see how you get the equation from post 40, and where did quadratic drag force come from?
I’m not sure I’m following what you are asking.
LT72884 said:
your book must be way better than my book. I just went through my section on drag which was 9.3, the rest of chp 9 was on flow. I think they picked this book because it focused more on stocks theorem and fluid flow. We spent one lecture on drag.

View attachment 322982
Different books can have different focuses sometimes. You’ll just have to Google “quadratic drag” in your spare time” and take my word for it for now.
 
  • #72
the bv^2 term that i plug into the diff eq, thats what i meant haha. where does that bv^2 come from. once i get equation from post 40, im not to sure what values to place in for b. but i will worry about it in the morning and i will integrat first to see what i get. I have a 3 hour train ride home from school and they just had to tow my train so i am delayed an hour.... its almost midnight too and we have 4 feet of snow
 
  • #73
LT72884 said:
where does that bv^2 come from
It comes from the equation you should be already familiar with, namely, Fd = 1/2*rho*v2*Cd*A.

At first approximation, 1/2, rho, Cd, and A are all constant, so it simplifies down to Fd = some constant * v2.

Now, for this, you probably have to account for varying air density, so it would be good if you could look up an atmosphere model (or better still, if you know the temperature that day, a temperature corrected atmosphere model), and then you'll want to basically try to fit your deceleration data to a model using this formula, with 1/2 (obviously), rho (from your atmosphere model), A (from whatever your chosen reference area is), and v2 all known (you know v from your data, which incidentally you should use accelerometer based speed rather than baro based speed if possible, it's much more accurate), and thus you can solve for Cd.

You know Fd because you know the burnout mass of your rocket and you had an accelerometer onboard, though you're going to (at least in my experience) have issues getting any kind of accurate data below a few hundred mph because you start getting limited by accelerometer discretization at that point. Because of this, you can rearrange your equation to Cd = Fd/(1/2*rho*v2*A), and then just solve for your Cd vs V curve.

(Also, the Raven is a great little altimeter, so I'm glad to hear you're using it)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes LT72884 and erobz
  • #74
LT72884 said:
the bv^2 term that i plug into the diff eq, thats what i meant haha. where does that bv^2 come from. once i get equation from post 40, im not to sure what values to place in for b. but i will worry about it in the morning and i will integrat first to see what i get. I have a 3 hour train ride home from school and they just had to tow my train so i am delayed an hour.... its almost midnight too and we have 4 feet of snow
Yikes! That’s a good storm.

(As was pointed out by @cjl ) you have velocity data in sufficiently small time steps that you should be able to compute ##a_{avg}## and ##v_{avg}## for each time step. Then you will solve the eq in post #40 for ##\beta##, and make a plot using that eq and calculated values ##a_{avg}## and ##v_{avg}##. We are hoping to find that this plot for ##\beta## can be reasonably aproximated by a straight - nearly horizontal line, implying ##\beta## and hence ##C_d## are a constant. If it turns out that it isn’t straight-horizontal then we can talk about what to do.
 
  • #75
erobz said:
Yikes! That’s a good storm.

(As was pointed out by @cjl ) you have velocity data in sufficiently small time steps that you should be able to compute ##a_{avg}## and ##v_{avg}## for each time step. Then you will solve the eq in post #40 for ##\beta##, and make a plot using that eq and calculated values ##a_{avg}## and ##v_{avg}##. We are hoping to find that this plot for ##\beta## can be reasonably aproximated by a straight - nearly horizontal line, implying ##\beta## and hence ##C_d## are a constant. If it turns out that it isn’t straight-horizontal then we can talk about what to do.
yeah, the storm was AMAZING!! we had a thundersnow. Its very rare to happen, but extreme winds and extreme lightning during a snowstorm. it was my first one i have ever seen so i freaked out a little because i thought "tornado"
Once i am awake and ready, i will begin the process of solving all this.
Solving for beta, do you want that done before or after the integration?

thanks
 
  • #76
LT72884 said:
yeah, the storm was AMAZING!! we had a thundersnow. Its very rare to happen, but extreme winds and extreme lightning during a snowstorm. it was my first one i have ever seen so i freaked out a little because i thought "tornado"
Once i am awake and ready, i will begin the process of solving all this.
Solving for beta, do you want that done before or after the integration?

thanks
You must find the functional form of ##\beta## before you do the integration to get ##v(t)##, as it may change the integrand dramatically depending on whether or not its constant or some function of ##v##.
 
  • #77
LT72884 said:
I think they picked this book because it focused more on stocks theorem and fluid flow.
That would be Stoke's Theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes LT72884 and erobz
  • #78
Mark44 said:
That would be Stoke's Theorem.
Yeah, i just spelled in wrong. One of my paitents i work with is name Stockely but its pronounced Stokely like stokes
 
  • #79
erobz said:
I don't know exactly the numbers, but I would expect something negative greater than ##g## given the equation:

$$ \frac{dv}{dt} = - \left( g + \frac{\beta}{m}v^2 \right)$$

?
solving for B i get:
1677611554978.png

is that how i needed to solve for it?
I know mass of the rocket, acceleration of the rocket, gravity, launch time and temp, rho, and velocity
where dv/dt is, do you just want me to use the acceleration values there?
 
  • #80
LT72884 said:
solving for B i get:
View attachment 323010
is that how i needed to solve for it?
I know mass of the rocket, acceleration of the rocket, gravity, launch time and temp, rho, and velocity
where dv/dt is, do you just want me to use the acceleration values there?
I want you to take the average acceleration across each time step (just for the truncated data).

##a_{avg} = \frac{ v_2 - v_1 }{ t_2- t_1}##

and arithmetic average velocity over the same time step

## v_{avg} = \frac{v_1 + v_2}{2}##

You are then going to plot ##\beta## vs ##v_{avg}##
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller and LT72884
  • #81
erobz said:
I want you to take the average acceleration across each time step (just for the truncated data).

##a_{avg} = \frac{ v_2 - v_1 }{ t_2- t_1}##

and arithmetic average velocity over the same time step

## v_{avg} = \frac{v_1 + v_2}{2}##

You are then going to plot ##\beta## vs ##v_{avg}##
ok, so the v^2 term in beta, am i using the ACTUAL sensor velocities or the average velocity?
and for the average velocity what is v1 and v2 because i only have the sensor velocity as posted in the excel.

thanks
 
  • #82
LT72884 said:
ok, so the v^2 term in beta, am i using the ACTUAL sensor velocities or the average velocity?
and for the average velocity what is v1 and v2 because i only have the sensor velocity as posted in the excel.

thanks
The average values.
 
  • #83
erobz said:
The average values.
ok, great. and i think i know what you mean now. from time 0.25 to 0.3, that would be v1 and v2, then from time 0.35 to 0.4 would be another v1 and v2? correct?
 
  • #84
LT72884 said:
ok, great. and i think i know what you mean now. from time 0.25 to 0.3, that would be v1 and v2, the 0.35 to 0.4 would be another v1 and v2? correct?
Yep,thats it...
 
  • #85
erobz said:
Yep,thats it...
ok, great. ill give that a go and see what happens. thanks for all the help. eventually i will see whats happening haha
 
  • #86
ok, there are 2 ways i could do this, which one is the best? i have this way
1677616250697.png

the 2 yellow velocities are averaged, the 2 blue and 2 green are as well. OR, i can do
(200.71+199.82)/2
(199.82+198.85)/2
(198.85+198.08)/2
(198.08+197.23)/2
 
  • #87
LT72884 said:
ok, there are 2 ways i could do this, which one is the best? i have this way
View attachment 323015
the 2 yellow velocities are averaged, the 2 blue and 2 green are as well. OR, i can do
(200.71+199.82)/2
(199.82+198.85)/2
(198.85+198.08)/2
(198.08+197.23)/2
Just start at the cell D3 . Write all the formulas as:

in cell D3:

Formula: = (C3 + C2)/(2)

And just drag it down. Same with the acceleration (different formula).
 
  • #88
erobz said:
Just start at the cell D3 . Write all the formulas as:

in cell D3:

Formula: = (C3 + C2)/(2)

And just drag it down. Same with the acceleration (different formula).
thats how i did it at first, by dragging the formula down. But i noticed it used a previous value so wasnt sure that would mess up the data or not, but i will go ahead and do it the way i was going to haha
1677617287821.png
 
  • #89
LT72884 said:
thats how i did it at first, by dragging the formula down. But i noticed it used a previous value so wasnt sure that would mess up the data or not, but i will go ahead and do it the way i was going to haha
View attachment 323021
move the formula down one cell. Then just stop it at the end. you are going to truncate the data a bit more to remove some outliers, or you could remove them point by point if you feel like it.
 
  • #90
cjl said:
It comes from the equation you should be already familiar with, namely, Fd = 1/2*rho*v2*Cd*A.

At first approximation, 1/2, rho, Cd, and A are all constant, so it simplifies down to Fd = some constant * v2.

Now, for this, you probably have to account for varying air density, so it would be good if you could look up an atmosphere model (or better still, if you know the temperature that day, a temperature corrected atmosphere model), and then you'll want to basically try to fit your deceleration data to a model using this formula, with 1/2 (obviously), rho (from your atmosphere model), A (from whatever your chosen reference area is), and v2 all known (you know v from your data, which incidentally you should use accelerometer based speed rather than baro based speed if possible, it's much more accurate), and thus you can solve for Cd.

You know Fd because you know the burnout mass of your rocket and you had an accelerometer onboard, though you're going to (at least in my experience) have issues getting any kind of accurate data below a few hundred mph because you start getting limited by accelerometer discretization at that point. Because of this, you can rearrange your equation to Cd = Fd/(1/2*rho*v2*A), and then just solve for your Cd vs V curve.

(Also, the Raven is a great little altimeter, so I'm glad to hear you're using it)
sorry for late reply. have had some crazy issues with my train rides. My train to school had to get towed by another train haha, then yesterday a truck fell off the overpass onto the train.
Ok, so how do i know Fd based on burnout mass?

thanks much.
I also preferer to use an accelerometer over barometric pressure readings for velocity.
for the quadratic drag, i see what they did. Beta is just a constant of all the constants
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
63
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
975
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
380
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K