A Comparative Study of Football Aerodynamics

Abstract

Ball sports are becoming faster and more demanding than ever before, pushing traditional ball designs to their limits. In order to meet the increasing performance requirements, the ball manufacturers are producing new designs progressively. A traditional spherical football made of 32 leather panels stitched together in 1970s has now become only 14 synthetic curved panels thermally bonded (without stitches). This 14-panels ball is believed to be more spherical and performs well. The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate aerodynamic performances of footballs made of 32 panels and 14 panels. The aerodynamic forces and moments were measured experimentally for a range of wind speeds (20 km/h to 130 km/h) and the non-dimensional drag coefficient was determined and compared.

Full text

A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Engineering
Procedia Engineering 00 (2009) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedi
a
8
th
Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA)
A Comparative Study of Football Aerodynamics
Firoz Alam*, Harun Chowdhury, Hazim Moria and Franz Konstantin Fuss
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia
Received 31 January 2010; revised 7 March 2010; accepted 21 March 2010
Abstract
Ball sports are becoming faster and more demanding than ever before, pushing traditional ball designs to their limits. In order to
meet the increasing performance requirements, the ball manufacturers are producing new designs progressively. A traditional
spherical football made of 32 leather panels stitched together in 1970s has now become only 14 synthetic curved panels thermally
bonded (without stitches). This 14-panels ball is believed to be more spherical and performs well. The primary objectives of this
study were to evaluate aerodynamic performances of footballs made of 32 panels and 14 panels. The aerodynamic forces and
moments were measured experimentally for a range of wind speeds (20 km/h to 130 km/h) and the non-dimensional drag
coefficient was determined and compared.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Aerodynamics, football, wind tunnel, drag;
1. Introduction
Aerodynamics plays a prominent role in defining the flight trajectory of all high speed ball sports. Depending on
aerodynamic behaviour, the ball can be deviated from its anticipated flight path significantly resulting in a curved
and unpredictable flight trajectory. Lateral deflection in flight, commonly known as swing, swerve or curve, is well
recognized in cricket, baseball, golf, tennis, volleyball and football (soccer). In most of these sports, the lateral
deflection is produced by spinning the ball about an axis perpendicular to the line of flight. Therefore, the
aerodynamic properties of a sport ball is fundamental for the players, coaches (trainers), regulatory bodies, ball
manufacturers and even the spectators. It is no doubt that the game of football is the most popular in the world. No
other game is so much loved, played and excited spectators than football. It is played in every corner by every nation
in the world. Although, the football among all sport balls traditionally has better aerodynamic properties and
balance, however, over the years, the design of football has undergone a series of technological changes, in which
the ball has been made to be more accurate and aerodynamically efficient by utilizing new design and
manufacturing processes. Adidas, the official supplier and manufacturer of footballs to FIFA (Federation
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 99256103; fax: +61 3 99256108.
E-mail address: firoz.alam@rmit.edu.au
c
 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-7058
c
 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.013

2 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2010) 000–000
Internationale de Football Association), has applied thermal bonding to replace conventional stitching to make a
seamless surface design and an improved carcass shape by using 14 curved panels (making the ball topologically
equivalent to a truncated octahedron) instead of 32 panels previously used in the ball since 1970. It is claimed that
the ball is more spherical and performs more uniformly regardless of where it is hit. However, no independent
studies have been reported in support of this statement. Although the aerodynamic behaviours of other sports balls
have been studied by Alam et al. [1, 2], Mehta [4] and Smits et al. [5], scant information is available to the public
domain about the aerodynamic behaviour of new seamless football except experiential studies by Asai [6, 7] and
computational study by Barber et al. [8]. Therefore, the primary objective of this work is to experimentally study the
aerodynamic properties of a new seamless ball and also a traditional 32-panel ball.
Nomenclature
D Drag Force
L Lift Force
S Side Force
C
D
Drag Coefficient
C
L
Lift Coefficient
C
S
Side-Force Coefficient
Re Reynolds Number
V Velocity of Air
ρ Density of Air
A Projected Area
2. Description of Balls
Two new balls have been selected for this study. One of these two balls was made of 32 leather panels by Nike
and the other ball was made by Adidas with thermally bonded 14 synthetic panels. Both are FIFA approved balls.
The diameter of the 32-panel ball is approximately 220 mm which is inflated with three different pressures. The size
the ball is 5 (eg, the circumference of the ball is in between 27 to 28 inch and the mass is in between 14 to 16
ounce). The 32-panel ball is stitched together to provide a truncated icosahedron archimedean spherical shape. The
14-panel Adidas ball is thermally bonded machine-pressed ball without any stitches or seams, which is believed to
be more spherical compared to a 32-panel ball. The diameter of the ball is approximately 220 mm and the size of the
ball is 5. A sting mount was used to hold the ball, and the experimental set up in the wind tunnel test section is
shown in Figure 2. The aerodynamic effect of sting on the ball was measured and found to be negligible. The
distance between the bottom edge of the ball and the tunnel floor was 420 mm, which is well above the tunnel
boundary layer and considered to be out of significant ground effect.
(a) Nike made 32-panels Football (with seams and stitches) (b) Adidas made 14-panels Football (seamless)
Fig. 1. Photographs of football
2444 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448

F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2010) 000–000 3
3. Experimental Set Up
In order to measure the aerodynamic properties of two footballs experimentally, the RMIT Industrial Wind
Tunnel was used. The tunnel is a closed return circuit wind tunnel with a maximum speed of approximately 150
km/h. Two mounting studs (stings) holding the ball with a six component force sensor (type JR-3) in the wind tunnel
were manufactured and purpose made computer software was used to digitise and record all 3 forces (drag, side and
lift forces) and 3 moments (yaw, pitch and roll moments) simultaneously. More details about the tunnel can be
found in Alam et al. [3]. The experimental set up of both balls in the wind tunnel is shown in Figure 2.
(a) 32-panel football (b) 14-panel football
Fig. 2. Experimental setup in the test section of RMIT Industrial Wind Tunnel
Each ball was fixed to the sting with an adhesive in order to make it very rigid. Three forces (drag, lift and side
force) and their corresponding moments were measured simultaneously under a range of speeds (20 km/h to 130
km/h within an increment of 20 km/h). The aerodynamic forces are defined as drag (D) acting in the opposite
direction to the wind, lift (L) acting perpendicular to the wind direction, and the side force acting (S) sideways based
on a frontal view. The measured aerodynamic forces were converted to non-dimensional drag coefficient (C
D
), the
lift coefficient (C
L
) and the lateral-force coefficient (C
S
), using the formula as defined in Eqs. 1 to 3.
AV
D
C
D
2
2
1
ρ
=
(1)
AV
L
C
L
2
2
1
ρ
=
(2)
AV
S
C
S
2
2
1
ρ
=
(3)
4. Results
4.1. Flow Visualization
In order to understand the flow structure around a 32-panel ball and a 14-panel seamless ball, the airflow was
visualized using smoke (see Figure 3).
F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448 2445

4 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2010) 000–000
(a) Airflow around the 32-panels football (b) Airflow around the 14-panels football
Fig. 3. Airflow structure of football with smoke flow visualization
Due to the roughness created by the seams in 32-panel ball, the airflow over ball became turbulent and
subsequently generated favorable pressure gradient and delayed flow separation as shown in Figure 3(a). The
airflow appears to be separated at around 100° from horizontal direction. Generally, the flow separates at around 90º
from the horizontal for a smooth surfaced sphere. For the 14-panel seamless and stitch-less ball, the surface is more
spherical and smooth. The ball behavior is very similar to a smooth sphere. As shown in Figure 3(b), the airflow
separates at around 90º from the horizontal as in the case of a smooth sphere. Therefore, the 14-panel ball can
potentially generate more aerodynamic drag at low speeds.
4.2. Aerodynamic Drag
The aerodynamic drags for the 32-panel Nike ball under 14.5 pound per square inch (psi) air pressure, 14-panel
Adidas ball under two different air pressures (13 and 14.5 psi) and a sphere for a range of Reynolds number varied
by wind speeds are shown in Figure 4. Two different pressures were chosen to see if there was any significant effect
of pump up pressure on aerodynamic properties. There is no notable variation in drag for the Adidas ball. Both balls
have similar trend, however, a minor fluctuation of drag was noted for the 32-panel Nike ball. The Nike ball
displayed more aerodynamic drag compared to the Adidas ball in the range of 60 km/h to 120 km/h. The
aerodynamic drag for the smooth sphere has clearly demonstrated notable variation and also undergone transition
from laminar to turbulent flow. No transition for the Adidas and Nike balls was noted (see Figure 4). In contrast, the
flow transition for the sphere is clearly visible in the plot in Figure 4.
The drag coefficient C
D
for the Adidas, Nike and a sphere is shown in Figure 5. The average C
D
value for both
balls is around 0.23 at speeds above 60 km/h. The transition (laminar boundary layer to fully turbulent boundary
layer) for both balls occurs in the range of Reynolds numbers 1.1y10
5
to 3y10
5
. In contrast, the boundary layer
undergoes transition for a smooth sphere at Reynolds numbers of 2.9y10
5
to 4.6y10
5
which is notably different from
flow regime around a football.
The boundary layer transition of a football is occurred much earlier compared to a smooth sphere. The results
from this study have agreed well with the published data by Asai et al. [9]. Although, the Nike 32-panel ball
displays relatively higher C
D
between 60 to 120 km/h speeds, the variation in drag coefficients for the Adidas 14-
panel ball and Nike 32-panel ball was not significant. It is clear from Figures 4 and 5 that the C
D
for the 32-panel
ball fluctuates more compared to the C
D
value of the 14-panel Adidas ball as it is believed to be more spherical than
the Nike 32-panel ball. The small variation in pump up pressure has virtually no effect on the aerodynamic drag as
shown in Figure 5.
2446 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448

F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2010) 000–000 5
Drag force as a function of wind speed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Speed (km/h)
Drag Force (N)
14-Panel (Adidas) @ 13 psi
14-Panel (Adidas) @ 14.5 psi
32-Panel (Nike) @ 14.5 psi
Smooth Sphere
Fig. 4. Aerodynamic drag of balls and a smooth sphere
Drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds Number
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number (Re)
Drag Coefficient (C
D
)
14-Panel (Adidas) @ 13 psi
14-Panel (Adidas) @ 14.5 psi
32-Panel (Nike) @ 14.5 psi
Smooth Sphere
Fig. 5. Drag coefficients of balls and a smooth sphere
F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448 2447

6 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 00 (2010) 000–000
5. Discussion
The C
D
value largely depends on the roughness of the ball exterior surface and the seams. They can cause
additional drag due to the boundary-layer separation. The results indicate that the C
D
value for a football is in
between a smooth sphere and a golf ball. The golf ball data was not shown here, however for more details, see [6].
As the speeds of the football are generally in the range of 90 km/h to 130 km/h during a free kick or long shot, the
C
D
value of 32-panel or 14-panel balls are expected to be the same. However, the C
D
value can be in the transition
zone when the ball is kicked for a short pass.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions were made from the work presented here:
• The drag coefficient of a non-spinning football is approximately 0.40 at low speeds (below 30 km/h) and 0.23 at
high speeds (over 60 km/h).
• The 32-panel ball has slightly higher drag at high speeds compared to the 14-panel ball.
• The drag coefficient of the 32-panel ball fluctuates due to its less spherical shape compared to a 14-panel
seamless and stitch-less ball.
• A small inflate pressure variation close to its recommended pressure has negligible effect on aerodynamic
properties.
Acknowledgements
The authors are highly grateful to the Australian Football Federation for providing the balls for this study and
their strong support.
References
[1] Alam F, Subic A, Watkins S, Naser J, Rasul M G. An experimental and computational study of aerodynamic properties of rugby balls.
WSEAS Transactions on Fluid Mechanics 2008;3:279-286.
[2] Alam F, Subic A, Watkins S, Smits A J. Aerodynamics of an Australian rules foot ball and rugby ball. Computational Science and
Engineering (edited by M. Peters), Springer, Germany; 2009.
[3] Alam F, Zimmer G, Watkins S. Mean and time-varying flow measurements on the surface of a family of idealized road vehicles. Journal
of Experimental Thermal and Fluid Sciences 2003;27:639-654.
[4] Mehta R D, Alam F, Subic A. Aerodynamics of tennis balls- a review. Sports Technology 2008;1:1-10.
[5] Smits A J, Ogg S. Golf ball aerodynamics. The Engineering of Sport 5, 2004;1:3-12.
[6] Asai T, Carré M J, Akatsuka T, Haake S J. The Curve Kick of a Football. Sports Engineering 2002;5:183–192.
[7] Asai T, Akatsuka T, Haake S J. The physics of football. Physics World 1998;11:25–27
[8] Barber S, Chin S B, Carre M J. Sports aerodynamics: A numerical study of the erratic motion of soccer balls. Computer & Fluids 2009;
38:1091-1100.
[9] Asai T, Seo K, Kobayashi O, Sakashita R. Fundamental aerodynamics of the soccer ball. Sports Engineering 2007:10:101-110.
2448 F. Alam et al. / Procedia Engineering 2 (2010) 2443–2448