A CFD EXERCISE TO SIMULATE THE MAGNUS-EFFECT AROUND A SPINNING BALL 1 Introduction

1.1 Objective . The main goal of this exercise is to simulate in an almost autonomous way the relative ow around a soccer spinning-ball with cfd and to evaluate the trajectory deection ! . So you will unravel some of the underlying mysteries of bending a soccer ball during kicking which will be a feature of the upcoming Soccer UEFA EURO 2008 in Switzerland; and you should better understand this technically very difcult art of scoring soccer goals from dead ball free kick situations, perfected by such world class soccer players as Brazil's Roberto Carlos, Germany's Michael Ballack and England's David Beckham.

2 Data
y Fa

spinning-ball trajectory
!

fz d

. . . . . . .

calm standard ICAO atmosphere diameter of the ball the ball is a perfect sphere with a glossy surface mean velocity of the ball spinning frequency of the ball length of ball ight mass of the ball

(1 atm, 15C) d = 0.22 m u = 80 kmh-1 f z = 10 Hz L = 27 m m = 0.45 kg.

3 Geometry and Mesh in Gambit

. Draw appropriate geometry with gambit. Let sufcient space after and around
the ball. Consider the symmetry of the ow.

. * Determine the thickness of the rst cells near the ball wall. For external ow,
let: 9"L Y P # ---------- " y + ; with 30 $ y + $ 500 Re L
(3.a)

goal by David Beckham of England versus Greece during the World Cup Qualifiers in 2001

. . . . .

1.2 Memorandum . This exercise will be noted. So you have to give back gambit- and uent journalles and also a small memorandum containing all items marked with a * in the following text. . Name all your les with the following scheme: yourname_soccerBall.ext

for this exercise, a coarse value should be sufcient. Cell length should not exceed 2 to 3 times Y P in separation area Create a boundary layer all around the prole with about 10 layers and a growth factor of about 1.1 to 1.15 To have the 3D Boundary layer working properly in gambit, leading walls are necessary, so your probably have to split the ow volume. Create a xed size function (start size = 2 to 3 times Y P ) Mesh the Flow-volume: and check it (* qualify the skewness of you mesh and make a representative picture of it)
-1

B. Schmutz, le 1/6/07

exer soccerball.fm

. Dene the boundaries. Pay attention to differentiate the ball wall from the other
walls . Export the 3d Mesh (yourname_soccerBall.msh) . leave gambit to unlock licenses

top, bottom and side wall

. with the very coarse mesh we made by the top and down walls, it is impossible to
capture a correct boundary layer on this walls, so we have to let the uid glide on them (set shear stress to 0) or make them symmetry-plane.
Ball

4 Case setting in Fluent

. simulate the stationary, incompressible, 3D and turbulent airow around the ball
with Fluent

.
4.1 Various

make the ball-wall spinning around the appropriate axis

. investigate pressure and velocity elds, ow trajectories, lift and drag coefcients.
Monitoring convergence

.
Viscous turbulent Model

* of the Residuals and of the lift and drag coefcients

Save the model case

. . .

k-epsilon
a robust and efcient turbulent model which gives good results in most cases where turbulence have an isotropic repartition

Under: (yourname_soccerBall.cas)

to begin with:

Standard

exaggerate wall viscosity effects and delays boundary layer separation, but very robust in term of convergence

5 Post-Processing

then (if you have time) Standard Wall Functions

Realizable with

Non Equilibrium

gives better results by positive pressure gradient in the ow direction and when it is not clear where ow separation should take place. inlet

A turbulence Intensity of 0.5%, and a viscosity ratio of 5 should be representative of a calm atmosphere.
outlet

let have atmospheric pressure at the outlet; so type 0 Pa in the Gauge pressure eld . 2% in the Backow Turbulence-intensity-eld . 20 for viscosity ratio
so if there is a backow through the outlet-edge, it will be modelled with more or less realistic values

5.1 check y +

. * on the ball wall

5.2 Visualise and analyse (in appropriate planes) . * pressure eld

B. Schmutz, le 1/6/07

exer soccerball.fm

-2

. . . .

* velocity eld

turbulence kinetic energy k , turbulence dissipation rates % , vortricity & * velocity vectors * passlines (from inlet and other injections surfaces to be dened. Try to make some nice plots with appropriate lightning and colours) . * Check to see that the solution makes sense based on engineering judgment. If ow features do not seem reasonable, you should reconsider your physical models and boundary conditions. Reconsider the choice of the boundaries location (or the domain). An inadequate choice of domain (especially the outlet boundary) can signicantly impact solution accuracy. 5.3 Calculate . * Drag c d and Lift factors c l . . * Aerodynamic forces due to pressure and wall friction . * Estimate the lateral trajectory deviation of the ball after L m of ight

cially when considerable spin is applied to the ball at the same time. This balance of sideways force and drag force stays roughly the same for most of the ball's trajectory but alters considerably near the goal as the ow around the ball transitions. Dr. Carr added that the wind tunnel test proves a long-held suspicion by researchers that a nonspinning soccer ball has similar drag characteristics to that of a golf ball and is signicantly different to that of a smooth sphere. This point of transition from turbulent to laminar ow around the ball is critical in soccer free kicks because the drag experienced by the ball increases by 150% in a split second when it happens. It is this phenomenon coupled with the almost constant spinning Magnus force that produces the exciting sudden dips and sideways motions of the best free kicks as the ball approaches the goal. This turbulent to laminar boundary layer transition also seems to move according to the spinning rate of the ball and the surface seam pattern of the ball used. At high spin rates transition occurs at faster ball speeds. Dr. Carr explained that the technique they have developed in Shefeld has allowed them to analyse in detail the spectacular goal by David Beckham of England versus Greece during the World Cup Qualiers in 2001. Beckhams shot left his foot at about 36 m/s (80 m.p.h.) from about 27m out with considerable spin and he lifted it half a metre over the defensive wall. The ball rose over the height of the crossbar during its ight as it moved laterally about 3m due to the highspin employed, before nally suddenly slowing down to about 19m/s (42 m.p.h.) and dipping into the corner of the goal. Almost certainly, the ow around the ball changed from turbulent to laminar several metres from the goal he noted because otherwise our calculations suggest that it would have gone over the crossbar. Beckham was applying some very sophisticated physics to his kick!
Computational Fluid Dynamics Study

6 Transmitting your results until 15.06.2007, 23h55

. Use Moodle upload . copy in there only your gambit- and uent journal-les and also your short memorandum (in.-.pdf) with the nice plots and comments your made.

7 Epilogue
Wind Tunnel Study and Trajectory Modelling

At the University of Shefeld, work on a 1/4 scale generic soccer ball in a wind tunnel has shown that the air around the ball transitions from laminar to turbulent ow at speeds between 8 and 10m/s although this is very dependent on the ball's surface structure and texture. This is important because the drag experienced by a ball as it ies through the air during a free kick strongly inuences its trajectory especially if the ball is spinning. It has long been known that a spinning ball will move sideways as it travels through the air because of a phenomenon known as the Magnus Force. This force is caused by the fact that on the side of a spinning ball moving through the air where its rotation and airow are in the same direction, the air speed increases and pressure decreases; on the side where the movement of the ball's surface opposes ow, air speed decreases and pressure increases. This imbalance of pressures produces the Magnus side force that is so pronounced at the end of a ball's ight when it slows down, espeB. Schmutz, le 1/6/07 exer soccerball.fm

CFD simulations to complement the wind tunnel study were carried out by Mr. Joeri Wilms of Fluent Benelux who used the same model as that used in the experimental analysis. His work showed good agreement with the experimental results and extended the analysis to areas the tunnel could not handle, together with providing detailed explanations of underlying ow phenomena. For instance, he discovered that at low non-spinning soccer ball velocities a large ow separation was visible behind the ball. As the air velocity increased the separation got smaller. This separated wake also became skewed to the side as increasing spin was imparted to the ball in the CFD simulations. Detailed force balances were easily derived from the CFD study that could then be fed into a free kick trajectory visualisation model. He also conrmed that the ball's seam caused the air boundary layer over the ball to trip and dependent on the orientation of the ball to the oncoming ow (and the pattern of surface patches on the ball) the ow separations in the wake behind the ball were very different and very complex.
-3