Getting 'negative' force when calculating drag

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LegendLength
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drag Force Negative
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of drag forces in a 3D game physics context, particularly when simulating flight dynamics. Participants explore the implications of drag on an object with a large surface area and low weight, and how this affects its motion under varying gravitational conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a scenario where a large, light sheet experiences upward drag forces that counteract gravity, leading to unexpected motion.
  • Another participant asserts that the formula for drag is correct but suggests that the issue may lie in how velocity is handled, particularly at low gravitational forces.
  • A third participant explains that when an object exceeds terminal velocity, the net force acts opposite to the direction of velocity, affecting acceleration but not necessarily causing upward motion.
  • One participant recommends using Newton's laws of motion and emphasizes the importance of a sufficiently small time step in numerical integration.
  • A participant acknowledges that the time step size was a contributing factor to the observed behavior of the drag force.
  • Another participant identifies the use of a simple Euler method as a potential source of convergence problems and suggests considering a Runge Kutta method as an alternative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the handling of drag forces and the effects of time step size in numerical integration. While some agree on the correctness of the drag formula, others highlight potential issues with its application in simulations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to handle high forces in game physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the time step size in numerical integration and the need for careful handling of velocity in drag calculations. There is also mention of the Euler method's convergence issues without reaching a consensus on the best numerical method to use.

LegendLength
Messages
21
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
That was exactly the problem, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K