See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257774750

Nonlinear impact model of a tennis racket and a ball

Article in Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology · February 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s12206-011-1027-2

CITATIONS READS

9 775

3 authors, including:

Apostolos Fafitis Avi Wiezel

Arizona State University Arizona State University
50 PUBLICATIONS 480 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Apostolos Fafitis on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321
www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x
DOI 10.1007/s12206-011-1027-2

Nonlinear impact model of a tennis racket and a ball†

Seongyeong Yang1,*, Apostolos Fafitis2 and Avi Wiezel3
1
Research Institute of Technology, Samsung C&T Corp., Seoul137-956, Korea
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
3
Del E. Webb School of Construction, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

(Manuscript Received January 5, 2011; Revised September 21, 2011; Accepted October 5, 2011)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

A nonlinear impact model of a ball impacting on a tennis racket was developed to investigate the impact characteristics of this collision.
The impact model included a tennis ball, the tennis racket frame and string bed in a tennis racket. The governing equations for the impact
model were derived and were solved by applying numerical analysis. Extensive parametric studies were conducted to study the effects of
the system parameters including ball dynamic stiffness, ball damping ratio, racket head size, string tension, string axial rigidity, etc. The
analysis results showed that although head size and string axial rigidity have negligible effects on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the
ball, string tension can have a significant effect on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball.
Keywords: Nonlinear impact model; Tennis racket; Tennis ball; String tension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

damper model for a tennis ball so that this refined model bet-
1. Introduction
ter represented experimental results from tests of a ball im-
When a tennis player hits a tennis ball with a tennis racket, pacting on the rigid floor.
the dwell time of the tennis ball, for which the ball and the Yang [5] developed a mathematical formulation for the
tennis racket maintain contact with each other, is extremely structural behavior of the string bed subjected to transverse
short. The dwell time, however, has an effect on the control of force perpendicular to the string bed. He conducted extensive
the ball because the racket is usually rotated during impact on parametric studies on the structural behavior of the string bed
the ball. The velocity ratio of the ball, which is defined as the for various parameters including string tension, axial rigidity
outgoing velocity to incoming velocity of the ball during im- of the string, string spacing and head size. He showed that the
pact, is related to the power of the ball. Both the dwell time relationship of the force vs. lateral deflection of the string bed
and velocity ratio of the ball are functions of various system can be successfully approximated by the 3rd-order polynomial.
parameters including ball dynamic stiffness, ball damping, Cross [6] developed a theoretical model for a tennis ball
string tension, racket head size, string axial rigidity, etc. impacting on a tennis racket. The ball was modeled as nonlin-
Therefore, these system parameters affect the performance of ear spring with varying spring constants during the compres-
tennis rackets to a certain degree. sion and expansion phases in order to account for hysteresis
Many researchers conducted analytic and experimental losses in the ball. The lateral behavior of the string bed was
studies on the impact characteristics of tennis balls. Haake et assumed to be linear, and the racket was idealized as a flexible
al. [1] experimentally showed that the dynamic stiffness of a beam. Goodwill et al. [7] also developed a theoretical model
tennis ball varied with deformation of the ball during impact. for impact between a tennis ball and a tennis racket. The ball
Cross [2] studied the impact of tennis balls on force platforms was modeled as a linear spring and a damper in parallel while
and found that the ball buckled during impact at the interface the string bed was modeled as a linear spring in series with the
between the ball and the surface. Dignall et al. [3] developed ball and the racket frame was assumed to be a rigid body.
an analytic model to represent a tennis ball with a mass- The objective of this study was to investigate the impact
spring-damper system with the spring and the damper in par- characteristics of a tennis ball impacting on a tennis racket. An
allel [3]. Goodwill et al. [4] improved this mass-spring- analytic model was developed for the impact between a ball
†
This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor and a racket, and was used for conducting extensive paramet-
Ohseop Song ric studies. The effects of system parameters including string
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 10 7183 6154, Fax.: +82 2 2145 6486
tension, head size, string axial rigidity, etc. were studied in
E-mail address: [email protected]
© KSME & Springer 2012 order to identify the importance of each of the parameters on
316 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321

the impact characteristics. where x& (0) and t are the incoming velocity of the ball and
time, respectively. When the ball leaves the rigid floor, the
2. Background displacement of the ball returns to zero. The application of this
condition to Eq. (5) produces duration time of the ball.
2.1 Mass-spring-damper model for a tennis ball

Fig. 1(a) shows a ball dropping freely onto a rigid floor. tl = π / ωd (6)
When a ball of mass, m , drops freely from a height of h1
onto a rigid floor and rebounds to a height of h2 , if the air where tl is the duration time for which the ball maintains
resistance is ignored, the law of energy conservation leads to contact with the rigid floor. Substituting v1 = x& (0) and
the following equations: v2 = − x& (t = tl ) into Eq. (5), the incoming velocity and the
outgoing velocity are related by the damping ratio, ζ, in the
mgh1 = mv12 / 2 (1) following way:
mgh2 = mv22 /2 (2)
ζ
−π
1−ζ 2
where g is gravitational acceleration, and v1 and v2 are the v2 = v1e . (7)
incoming and outgoing velocities of the ball, respectively.
Height ratio, H, can be represented as the ratio of rebounding Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (3), the damping ratio, ζ , is
height, h2 , to drop height, h1 . expressed as a function of height ratio, H.

H = h2 h1 = v22 v12 (3)

1 + ( 2π ln H )
2
ζ =1 (8)

The energy dissipation of the ball during impact between

the ball and the rigid floor can be simulated by viscous damp- Substituting the relationships of cc = 2 mk and ζ = c / cc
ing. A governing equation for the ball impacting on the rigid into Eq. (8), the damping constant of the ball can be expressed
floor can be developed using the mass-spring-damper model as a function of height ratio, H.
as shown in Fig. 1(b).
1 + ( 2π ln H )
2
mx&& + cx& + kx = 0 (4) c = 2 mk (9)

where x is the displacement of a point mass for the ball, and c

and k are the viscous damping constant and spring constant of 2.2 Transverse stiffness of a string bed
the ball, respectively. The point mass for the ball, m, is assumed The transverse stiffness of the string bed, which is stiffness
to be located in the geometric center of the ball. Considering the of the string bed in the direction perpendicular to the string
relationships of cc = 2 mk , ζ = c / cc , ωn = k / m , and bed, is not constant but a function of the transverse deflection
ωd = 1 − ζ 2 ωn , the solution to Eq. (4) can be obtained in a of the string bed. Since the relationship between the transverse
closed form. force and the transverse deflection of the string bed shows
stiffness hardening and it is extremely hard to obtain such
x& (0)
x(t ) = e −ζωn t sin ωd t (5) relationship in the closed form, a cubic-polynomial approxi-
ωd
mation was used to represent the relationship.

f sb = ay 3 + by 2 + cy (10)

where fsb is transverse force of the string bed in the center, y is

lateral deflection of the string bed in the center, and a, b and c
are system parameters determined by the optimization tech-
nique [5]. It should be noted that the slope of the function, fsb,
represents the transverse stiffness of the string bed.

2.3 Effective mass of a tennis racket

In this study, the impact point of a ball is limited to the cen-

ter of the string bed in a tennis racket so that frame vibrations
(a) Free-drop and rebound (b) Mass-spring-damper
are not excited by the impact of the ball. Therefore, a rigid
model for ball model of ball
body model was adopted for modeling the tennis racket frame.
Fig. 1. Modeling of a ball impacting on a rigid floor. In this section, a uniform rigid rod representing the frame of a
 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321 317

racket was used to derive the effective mass of the racket From Eq. (15), the effective point mass of the rod can be
frame. expressed in the following form:
Fig. 2 shows a ball and a rigid rod before and after impact
between the ball and the rigid rod. The point mass, mb, repre- 1 ⎛ 1 R2 ⎞
sents the tennis ball, and the rod, mr, represents the tennis = ⎜⎜ + ⎟. (16)
mre ⎝ mr I r ⎟⎠
racket frame. R , vrCM , vr 2 , wr 2 , and I R are the distance
from the center of mass of the rod to the impact point, the
velocity at the center of mass of the rod, the velocity of the rod 3. Nonlinear impact model
at the impact point, the angular velocity of the rod, and the
Fig. 3(a) shows a tennis ball impacting on a tennis racket. The
moment of inertia of mass of the rod, respectively. The con-
movement of the ball is assumed to be perpendicular to the
servation of momentum is valid even for collision of bodies
plane of the racket string bed. As mentioned earlier, the impact
with energy loss during their collision. Application of the con-
point of the ball is confined to the centroid of the string bed. The
servation of linear momentum and the conservation of angular
racket is suspended freely in the air. The impact between the
momentum leads to the following equations:
ball and the racket can be represented by a nonlinear impact
model as shown in Fig. 3(b). As described in the previous sec-
mbvb1 = mr vrCM + mbvb 2 (11)
tions, the tennis ball can be modeled as a mass-spring-damper
mbvb1R = I r wr 2 + mbvb 2 R (12) system. The frame in the racket is assumed to be a rigid body
and the string bed is idealized as a nonlinear spring.
where vb1 and vb2 are the incoming velocity and outgoing ve- During impact, there is no external force acting on the sys-
locity of the ball, respectively. tem of the ball and the racket, and energy dissipation is as-
The coefficient of restitution, ebb , is the ratio of velocity of sumed to occur only to the ball. The ball and the string bed
the incident mass to its outgoing velocity when the other mass have elastic properties which allow them to store their kinetic
is initially at rest. energy as elastic energy. These elastic properties are ac-
counted for by using mechanical springs in the ball and the
ebb = − vb 2 vb1 (13) racket. The structural damping of the ball which accounts for
the loss of energy during deformation of the ball is modeled as
The velocity of the rod at a point of impact after collision is a viscous damper. Fig. 4 shows free-body diagrams of the ball,
the velocity of the center of mass of the rod plus the relative the contact joint and the racket during impact. While the ball
velocity at the point of impact with respect to the center of applies force to the racket, the racket provides reaction to the
mass of the rod. ball.

vr 2 = vrCM + Rwr 2 (14)

Substituting Eq. (11) through Eq. (13) into Eq. (14), the ve-
locity, vr 2 , becomes

⎛ 1 R2 ⎞
vr 2 = ⎜⎜ + ⎟ mb (1 + ebb ) vb1 . (15) (a) A ball impacting on a racket
⎝ mr I r ⎟⎠

(a) Before collision (b) After collision (b) Nonlinear impact model for a ball impacting on a racket

Fig. 2. Collision between a point mass and a rigid rod. Fig. 3. A ball impacting on a racket and their nonlinear impact model.
318 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321

The application of Newton’s 2nd law to the ball leads to the 4. Results and discussion
equation of motion of the ball.
4.1 Displacement response of nonlinear impact model
( ) (
yb + cb y&b − y& j + kb yb − y j = 0
mb && ) (17) Fig. 5 illustrates displacement response of the nonlinear
impact model simulating a ball impacting on a racket in the
where cb and kb are the damping constant and spring con- center of mass of the string bed. The impact model has a ball
stant of the ball, respectively. dynamic stiffness of 35 kN/m, damping ratios of 1.67%,
The force applied by the ball during impact is in equilib- 5.67% and 10.97%, a racket head size of 452 cm2, an string
rium with the reaction force provided by the string bed. axial rigidity of 12.5 kN and a string tension of 343 N. The
preimpact speed of the ball is 13.5 m/s and the effective point
mass of the racket initially stays at rest. The physical meaning
( ) (
cb y&b − y& j + kb yb − y j = f sb ) (18)
of displacement in the y-axis of the displacement response in
Fig. 5 stands for the displacement of center of mass of the ball
where f sb is nonlinear spring force for the string bed in the and effective mass of the tennis racquet. The ball point mass
racket as defined in Eq. (10). starts making contact with the contact joint at time of zero, and
The equation of motion of the racket is also obtained by us- continues decreasing its speed until reaching its maximum dis-
ing Newton’s 2nd law. placement where the speed of the ball point mass becomes zero.
Right after passing through the maximum displacement, the ball
yr − f sb = 0
mre && (19) point mass starts traveling in the opposite direction to the in-
coming velocity, and continues increasing its speed until it loses
Eq. (17) through Eq. (19) is the governing equations of the contact with the contact joint. In contrast to the displacement
nonlinear impact model between the ball and the racket. These response of the ball point mass, the effective racket point mass
equations are simultaneous nonlinear ordinary differential maintains the direction of its movement and continues increas-
equations with constant coefficients, and have the following ing its speed until losing contact with the contact joint.
initial conditions:
Table 1. Parameter values for impact model.
y&b (t = 0) = vb 0 , y& r (t = 0) = vr 0 , y& j (t = 0) = vb 0 (20)
Dynamic Damping
yb (t = 0) = 0 , yr (t = 0) = 0 , y j (t = 0) = 0 (21) Mass Diameter
Stiffness ratio
Ball (g) (mm)
(kN/m) (%)
where vb 0 and vr 0 are initial velocities of the ball and the 57 67 15-75 1.67-10.97
racket, respectively. Table 1 lists typical values for system Head Axial String String
parameters of the impact model. Extensive parametric studies String size rigidity tension spacing
on the impact model were conducted over the parameter val- bed (cm2) (kN) (N) (mm)
ues listed in the table. 452~774 2.5~12.5 147~343 12
Effective Distance
Mass Length
mass between
Racket (g) (cm)
(g) CMsa (cm)
320 161.62 72 20
Note) a: distance between the center of mass of the string bed and the
center of mass of the racket

Fig. 4. Free-body diagrams during impact. Fig. 5. Displacement response of nonlinear impact model.
 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321 319

4.2 Effects of ball-related parameters of the ball increases with dynamic stiffness of the ball. For
example, when the value of dynamic stiffness of the ball in-
Figs. 6 and 7 show results from dynamic analyses of the creases from 10 kN/m to 60 kN/m, the dwell time of the ball
impact model that demonstrate effects of the damping ratio of decreases from 6.41 ms to 3.28 ms, resulting in a 48.9% drop
the ball on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball. The in the dwell time. For the increase in dynamic stiffness of the
impact model shown in both graphs considers a ball dynamic ball from 10 kN/m to 60 kN/m, the velocity ratio of outgoing
stiffness of 35 kN/m, a racket head size of 452 cm2, a string velocity to incoming velocity of the ball increases from 0.30
axial rigidity of 12.5 kN and a string tension of 343 N. Fig. 6 to 0.38, leading to a 26.7% increase in the outgoing velocity of
shows that although larger damping ratio of the ball leads to a the ball. This indicates that larger dynamic stiffness of the ball
slight decrease in the dwell time of the ball, the damping ratio results in more power of the outgoing ball.
of the tennis ball does not have a significant effect on the
dwell time of the ball. However, in Fig. 7, when the damping
4.3 Effects of string-bed-related parameters
ratio of the ball changes from 1.67% to 10.97%, the velocity
ratio of the outgoing velocity to incoming velocity of the ball The effects of string-bed-related parameters such as head size,
changes from 0.45 to 0.33, resulting in a 26% drop in the in- string tension and string axial rigidity were investigated and the
coming velocity of the ball. This indicates that more damping analysis results from the nonlinear impact model are shown in
in the tennis ball leads to lower outgoing velocity of the ball Figs. 10 and 11. Although extensive parametric studies were
for a given incoming velocity of the ball. conducted over parameter values listed in Table 1, only some of
Figs. 8 and 9 show the effects of dynamic stiffness of a ball the analysis results are shown here, because they are representa-
on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball. The ball has a tive of all the analysis results. As shown in Figs. 10 and 11, the
damping ratio of 9.47% and a preimpact velocity of 13.5 m/s. dwell time and the velocity ratio of the ball decrease with string
Figs. 8 and 9 suggest that while the dwell time of the ball tension in the string bed. This suggests that larger string tension
decreases with dynamic stiffness of the ball, the velocity ratio

Fig. 8. Effects of dynamic stiffness of a ball on dwell time.

Fig. 6. Effects of damping ratio of a ball on dwell time.

Fig. 7. Effects of damping ratio of a ball on velocity ratio of the ball. Fig. 9. Effects of dynamic stiffness of a ball on velocity ratio.
320 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321

Table 2. Average percentage change in the dwell time and velocity

ratio of a ball.

Change in Velocity
Parameter Dwell time
quantity ratio
Head size
452 to 774 + 2.81 (%) + 2.14 (%)
(cm2)
String axial
12.5 to 2.5 + 0.55 (%) + 0.50 (%)
rigidity (kN)
String
343 to 147 + 19.28 (%) + 12.34 (%)
tension (N)

changes in averaged dwell time values and averaged velocity

ratios were taken as average percentage changes in the dwell
Fig. 10. Effects of string-bed parameters on dwell time at low ball time and in the velocity ratio, respectively. A similar proce-
speed. dure was used for parameters of string axial rigidity and string
tension in order to obtain the average percentage change in the
dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball. Although changes in
head size and string axial rigidity have an effect on the dwell
time and velocity ratio of the ball, the magnitude of their ef-
fects is minor. However, string tension has a significant effect
on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball. A change in
string tension from 343 N to 147 N can increase the outgoing
velocity of the ball by 12.34%.

5. Conclusions
A nonlinear impact model was developed for a ball impact-
ing on a racket freely hanging in the air. The ball was modeled
as a mass-spring-damper, and the racket was idealized as a
rigid bar with the string bed represented with a nonlinear
Fig. 11. Effects of string-bed parameters on velocity ratio at low ball spring. Extensive parametric studies were conducted on the
speed. analytic impact model over a variety of system parameters
including ball dynamic stiffness, ball damping ratio, racket
gives less power to the ball and allows better control. It is head size, string axial rigidity, and string tension. The follow-
clearly shown that the increase in head size leads to larger dwell ing conclusions were made:
time and velocity ratio of the ball. Their magnitude of the effect, - For a change in ball damping ratio from 1.67% to 10.97%,
however, is very small and therefore negligible. Although the the velocity ratio of the outgoing velocity to incoming velocity
effects of axial rigidity of the string are not shown in Figs. 10 of the ball changes from 0.45 to 0.33, resulting in a 26% drop
and 11 from the analysis results, the dwell time and velocity in the incoming velocity of the ball.
ratio of the ball decrease with axial rigidity of the string and the - For an increase in ball dynamic stiffness from 10 kN/m to
effects of the axial rigidity are negligible. Table 2 summarizes 60 kN/m, the velocity ratio of the ball increases from 0.30 to
the average percentage change in the dwell time and velocity 0.38, leading to a 26.7% increase in the outgoing velocity of
ratio of a ball over parameter values listed in Table 1 with a ball the ball.
dynamic stiffness and a damping ratio fixed at 35 kN/m and - While head size and string axial rigidity have negligible
9.47%, respectively. effects on the dwell time and velocity ratio of the ball, string
For each of extreme ends of parameters of head size, string tension has a significant effect on the dwell time and velocity
axial rigidity and string tension, both dwell time values and ratio of the ball.
velocity ratios were averaged. Percentage changes in the aver-
aged dwell time values and velocity ratios are defined as aver-
Acknowledgment
age percentage change. For example, for each of the extreme
head sizes of 452 cm2 and 774 cm2, numerical analyses of the The work was funded by a seed grant provided by the Ira E.
nonlinear impact model were conducted on 25 combinations Fulton School of Engineering for the establishing of the Sports
of string tensions and string axial rigidities. 25 dwell time Engineering Group at ASU in USA. The authors greatly ap-
values and 25 velocity ratios from the analysis results were preciate the financial support from the Ira E. Fulton School of
averaged for each of extreme head sizes, and then percentage Engineering.
 S. Yang et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (2) (2012) 315~321 321

[6] R. Cross, Flexible beam analysis of the effects of string ten-

References
sion and frame stiffness on racket performance, Journal of
[1] S. Haake, M. Carré and S. Goodwill, The dynamic impact Sports Engineering, 3 (2) (2000) 111-122.
characteristics of tennis balls with tennis rackets, Journal of [7] S. Goodwill and S. Haake, Spring damper model of an im-
Sports Sciences, 21 (10) (2003) 839-850. pact between a tennis ball and racket, Proceedings of the In-
[2] R. Cross, Dynamic properties of tennis balls, Journal of stitution Mechcanical Engineers (2001) 1331-1341.
Sports Engineering, 2 (1) (1999) 23-33.
[3] R. Dignall and S. Haake, Analytical modeling of the impact
of tennis balls on court surfaces, Tennis Science and Tech- Seongyeong Yang received his Ph.D. in
nology (2000) 155-162. Civil Engineering from The University
[4] S. Goodwill and S. Haake, Modelling of tennis ball impacts of Texas at Austin, USA, in 2009. He is
on a rigid surface, Proceedings of the Institution Mechcani- currently working as a senior researcher
cal Engineers (2004) 1139-1153. for Samsung C&T Corp.
[5] S. Yang, Nonlinear dynamic behavior of tensioned meshes
under impact, Thesis, Arizona State University, USA, 2004.

View publication stats