Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Introduction
The surface structure of a tennis ball is complex due
to its fuzzy structure and seam orientation. Hence,
the aerodynamics properties of a tennis ball vary
significantly from other sports balls. Several studies
by Alam et al. [1-6], Mehta and Pallis [7-8],
Chadwick and Haake [9] described the aerodynamic
properties of tennis ball under non-spinning
conditions. The aerodynamic behaviour becomes
more complex when tennis ball is spun. Apart from
the drag and gravitational forces, the lift force is
generated due to the spin. The spin affects
aerodynamic drag and lift of a tennis ball, and thus
the motion and flight of the ball. There is no doubt
that the aerodynamics and spin play an important
role in the outcomes of sport ball games. Magical
tricks by some renowned players such as the short
flight (drop) in tennis by Venus Williams serve, the
curve flight in foot ball by Juniors kick, the curve
flight in baseball by Randy Johnson and the flight
path in golf by Tiger Woods drive are well known
to many sport lovers. In order to generate a curve
flight of a ball through hitting (or serving), throwing
and kicking or hitting a ball, the player generally
uses the so called Magnus effect. The phenomenon
was first observed by German physicist Heinrich
Gustav Magnus in 1853. Isaac Newton also
described the curved flight of a tennis ball after
watching a tennis match. Due to Magnus effect, a
spinning ball moving through air produces an
aerodynamic force perpendicular to the balls spin
ISSN: 1790-5087
271
Spin Effects on
Aerodynamics
Tennis
CS =
Re =
Ball
=
(3)
V 2 A
Ball types
~CD
0.5 0.2
Diameter
(mm)
219.0
Mass
(g)
427
Speed
m/s
20
Foot ball
(soccer)
Golf ball
Tennis ball
Squash ball
Baseball
0.4
0.6 0.65
0.4
0.45
42.0
64.5
39.5
70.0
45
57
24
141
70
45
60
40
Cricket ball
0.5
70.0
165
30
Surface
Recess pattern
Recess dimples
Hairy fuzz
Smooth
A seam with over
200 stiches
Six pairs of seam
(4)
ISSN: 1790-5087
(8)
1
2
1 D
2 V
CL =
(7)
S = C S 12 V 2 A
V 2 A
V D
3 Experimental Procedure
(2)
1
2
(6)
(1)
L = C L 12 V 2 A
CD =
V 2 A
D = C D 12 V 2 A
S
1
2
(5)
272
KEY
Motor Room
Fan
Anechoic
Turning
Vanes
Diffuser
Flow
Test
Contraction
Section Turntable
Car
Entrance
Retractable
Turning Vanes
Anechoic
Turning
Vanes
Turning
Vanes
Flow
Heat Bench
System
Control
Panel
d) Slazenger 1
c) Wilson Rally
2
e) Slazenger 4
f) Bartlett
ISSN: 1790-5087
b) Wilson DC 2
273
Fig. 4: A 3D sphere
CAD model
Fig. 5: A 3D simplified
CAD model of tennis
ball with 2 mm seam
width
ISSN: 1790-5087
274
ISSN: 1790-5087
275
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Drag Coefficient, Cd
0.90
Cd (500)
Cd (1000)
Cd (1500)
Cd (2000)
Cd (2500)
Cd (3000)
Cd (3500)
Cd (4000)
Cd (0)
1.00
Drag Coefficient, CD
(500)
(1000)
(1500)
(2000)
(2500)
(3000)
(0)
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
60
80
100
120
140
Speeds, km /h
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
60
80
100
Speed (km/h)
120
140
0.40
0.35
Lift Coefficient, CL
1.00
0.90
Drag Coefficient, Cd
0.80
0.70
0.30
0.25
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
(500)_backspin
(1000)_backspin
(1500)_backspin
(2000)_backspin
(2500)_backspin
(3000)_backspin
(3500)_backspin
(4000)_backspin
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
40
60
80
100
120
140
Velocity (km/h)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Cl (500)
Cl (1000)
0.00
40
60
80
100
120
0.20
140
Lift Coefficient, C L
Speed (km/h)
Cl (1500)
0.18
Cl (2000)
0.16
Cl (2500)
Cl (3000)
0.14
Cl (3500)
0.12
Cl (4000)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
60
80
100
120
140
Speed (km/h)
ISSN: 1790-5087
276
0.80
Cs (500)
Cs (1000)
Cs (1500)
Cs (2000)
Cs (2500)
Cs (3000)
0.70
Lift Coefficient
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
60
80
100
120
140
Speed, km /h
Acknowledgements
The authors express their sincere thanks to Mr
Wisconsin Tio, School of Aerospace, Mechanical
and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University
for his assistance with the CFD modelling of
simplified tennis balls.
Backspin
60 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.58 0.05
0.59 0.05
0.59 0.08
0.60 0.10
0.61 0.12
0.62 0.14
0.63 0.17
0.64 0.19
Backspin
80 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.54 0.04
0.54 0.05
0.54 0.06
0.55 0.10
0.55 0.11
0.56 0.13
0.56 0.14
0.57 0.16
Back Spin
Backspin
120 km/h
100 km/h
Cd
Cl
Cd
Cl
0.51
0.04
0.49 0.04
0.51
0.04
0.49 0.04
0.51
0.06
0.49 0.06
0.52
0.09
0.50 0.09
0.52
0.09
0.50 0.09
0.52
0.10
0.50 0.10
0.53
0.12
0.50 0.11
0.53
0.13
0.50 0.12
References:
Backspin
140 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.47 0.04
0.48 0.04
0.48 0.06
0.48 0.08
0.48 0.09
0.49 0.09
0.49 0.10
0.49 0.11
[1] Alam, F., Tio, W., Subic, A., and Watkins, S.,
An experimental and computational study of
tennis ball aerodynamics, 3rd Asia Pacific
Congress on Sports Technology in The Impact
of Technology on Sport II (edited by F. K.
Fuss, A. Subic and S. Ujihashi), Taylor &
Francis, London, ISBN 978-0-415-45695-1,
2007, pp. 437-442.
[2] Alam, F., Subic, S. and Watkins, S., An
experimental study of spin effects on tennis ball
aerodynamic properties, Proceedings of the 2nd
Asia Pacific Congress on Sports Technology,
Tokyo, Japan, 12-16 September, 2007, ISBN 0646-45025-5, pp. 240-245.
[3] Alam, F., Tio, W., Watkins, S., Subic, A. and
Naser, J., Effects of Spin on Tennis Ball
Aerodynamics:
An
Experimental
and
Computational Study, Proceedings of the 16th
Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference,
ISBN 978-1-864998-94-8, 3-7 December, Gold
Coast, Australia, 2007, pp 324-327
[4] Alam, F., Watkins, S., and Subic, S., The
Aerodynamic Forces on a Series of Tennis
Balls, Proceedings of the 15th Australasian
Fluid Mechanics Conference, University of
Sydney, Australia, 13-17 December, 2004
[5] Alam, F., Subic, S. and Watkins, S., Effects of
Spin on Aerodynamic Properties of Tennis
Balls, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Sports Engineering, University
Backspin
60 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.59 0.06
0.60 0.08
0.60 0.11
0.61 0.15
0.61 0.18
0.62 0.20
0.63 0.25
0.64 0.25
Backspin
80 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.54 0.08
0.55 0.13
0.55 0.12
0.55 0.13
0.56 0.13
0.56 0.14
0.57 0.14
0.57 0.15
Back Spin
100 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.51
0.08
0.52
0.10
0.52
0.12
0.52
0.13
0.52
0.13
0.53
0.13
0.53
0.14
0.53
0.14
Backspin
120 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.49 0.08
0.50 0.10
0.50 0.11
0.50 0.12
0.50 0.12
0.50 0.12
0.50 0.13
0.51 0.13
Backspin
140 km/h
Cd
Cl
0.48 0.08
0.48 0.10
0.48 0.11
0.48 0.11
0.48 0.12
0.49 0.12
0.49 0.12
0.49 0.13
6 Conclusion
The following conclusions are made from the work
presented here:
The spin has significant effects on the drag and
lift of a new tennis ball. The averaged drag
coefficient is relatively higher compared to the
non- spin condition.
The lift force coefficient increases with spin rate.
However, the increase is minimal at the higher
speeds.
ISSN: 1790-5087
277
ISSN: 1790-5087
278