340 likes | 466 Views
Baseball and Bat Performance Standards. Alan M. Nathan Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a-nathan@uiuc.edu. NCAA Research Committee Omaha, NE June 13, 2001. Outline. Introduction General Principles Current NCAA and ASTM Procedures A New Proposal
E N D
Baseball and Bat Performance Standards Alan M. Nathan Department of Physics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign a-nathan@uiuc.edu NCAA Research Committee Omaha, NE June 13, 2001
Outline • Introduction • General Principles • Current NCAA and ASTM Procedures • A New Proposal • Need for Additional Research • Summary/Conclusions
Introduction • The main issue: • how to devise laboratory tests to predict field performance • The approach: • Study problem with model for ball-bat collision • Model constrained by • physics principles • data • intelligent guessing • Compare with available data
vball vbat vf General Principles • Lab: Given vball , vbat • measure vf • determine eA • Field: Given vball , vbat , eA • predict vf eA = “collision efficiency” = BESR-1/2
vball eAvball Properties of eA • For bat initially at rest… • eA = vf/vball • BESR = vf/vball + 1/2 • -1 eA +1 • at “sweet spot”, eA 0.2 (BESR 0.7) • vbat much more important than vball
vball vbat vf Properties of eA(or BESR) • It depends on... • inertial properties (mball, Mbat, CM, MOI, impact point) • COR of ball+bat • impact point • vrel = vball + vbat • but weakly • It does not depend on... • vball or vbat individually • only vrel • support on knob end • free, clamped, pivoted, hand-held
Typical Example 34”/31 oz wood bat vball = 90 mph knob = 45 rad/s Conclusions: • location of vf ,MAX depends on • the bat (eA) • the swing (vbat) • COP not relevant
. . . CM b . . pivot r bat recoil factor (inertial properties) e ball-bat COR 0.5 = BPF e0 e0 ball-wall COR x Pivoted Free What Does eA Depend On? = +
Free vs. Pivoted conclusions: • eA ~ independent of knob end (support, mass, …) • e (or BPF) not! • should be tested experimentally
Dot is COP Simulations of Aluminum Bats (34”, 31 oz)
Dependence on Impact Speed NOTE: effect mainly due to ball-wall COR (e0)
Review of Current NCAA Procedure • Standard swing: • vball = 70 mph vbat = 66 mph @ z=6” • vrel = 136 mph • BHM swings bat • Measure vf and infer BESR • Require vf,max 97 mph • eA,max 0.228 • BESR 0.728
Good Features of NCAA Procedure • Use of BESR (eA) as performance metric • better than BPF as predictor pf performance • Metric applied at optimum impact point • not at some arbitrary point (COP, …) • vrel = 136 mph approximates game conditions • far better than old ASTM method • although 160 mph is better
Possible Problems • Problems of principle • not subjected to scientific scrutiny • “peer review” • high torque of BHM may excite vibrations in bat • Problems of procedure • normalization of eA to bat speed • correction for non-standard ball COR
BHM Swing vs. Batter Swing • Much higher torque with BHM • wood bats break • possible excitation of “diving board mode” • 15 Hz • very rough estimate • v=3 mph • more study needed • measure vibration • cross check with other techniques
Problem with vbat Normalization • must use vbat at actual impact point • should not use vbat at z=6” • unless impact point is there • example: suppose vf,max at z=7” or 5” and eA=0.220 • inferred eA=0.193 @ 7” and 0.247 @ 5” • this is a significant error (but easily fixed) • 4.3 mph in a 90+70 collision
Problem with COR Correction • For a given ball, measure vf in 70+68 (138 mph) collision with standard bat at z=6” • rsb=0.2278; if vf=94 mph e0,sb=0.459 (@125 mph) • x vf - 94 • For bat being tested with this ball, adjust eA • eA= x/vrel (should this be -x/vrel?) • This is at best an approximation
Better COR Correction infer e0of ball with standard bat (using rsb) measure eAof same ball with bat under test use r to infer e scale e by e0,sb/e0 used scaled e and r to recompute eA NOTE: -even this procedure is approximate -need experiments to check consistency
Review of Proposed ASTM Procedure • Project ball on stationary bat at 140 mph • bat pivot point is 6” from knob • Measure vball and vffor impact at COP • Use measured ball-wall COR e0and measured inertial properties of bat rto infer BPF • Use BPF as metric/predictor of performance
Comments on ASTM Procedure • The Good: • completely transparent procedure that is easily checked by any interested observer • does not attempt to measure speed of struck bat, unlike old ASTM procedure • vrel approximates game conditions • measures ball-wall COR with same apparatus • The Bad: • use of BPF as metric (eA is better) • restriction to measurements at COP
Proposed New Procedure • Use the best features of the current NCAA and the proposed ASTM procedures • fire ball at stationary bat at 150 mph • eliminates possible complications of BHM • makes entire process easily understood by all • measure vball and vf to get eA = vf/vball • measure over broad enough range to cover vf,max • need to define standard conditions • correct eA for ball-wall COR • need to measure ball-wall COR • at what velocity? More on this later. • need to measure inertial properties of bat (r)
Proposed New Procedure • use eA and standard swing to predict vf,max • regulate size of vf,max
The Standard Swing z X 3” Z 0.8” x 45 rad/s vbat vs. z Crisco/Greenwald Batting Cage Study 70 mph @ 28”
Standard Conditions vball = 90 mph knob = 45 rad/s vrel = 160 mph @ z=6”
Standard Conditionse0 = 0.46 • Need ball-wall COR at appropriate speed • If ball-bat collision is at vrel • ball-wall collision should be at same center-of-mass energy • 150 mph ~134 mph • Should be checked experimentally
Crisco/Greenwald Batting Cage vs. Lansmont Laboratory
Crisco/Greenwald Batting Cage vs. Calculations
Crisco/Greenwald Batting Cage Study: bat speed versus MOI • I-nknob • n=0 • constant bat speed • n=0.5 • constant bat energy • data • n=0.31 0.04 • constant “bat+batter” energy, with Ibatter104 oz-in2 • v(6”) = 1.2 x 10-3 mph/oz-in2(vf=1.5 0.3 mph)
Areas for more Experiments • More extensive wood-aluminum comparisons • BHM vs. stationary vs. field comparisons • COR: flat vs. cylindrical • Collision time vs. vrel • COR vs. vrel(recoil effect) • vbat vs. M, MOI, zCM, … • COR correction to eA • eA for free vs pivoted bat • off-axis effects
Summary of Important Points • Much of the physics of ball-bat collision well understood • basic principles • models constrained by good data • This understanding can be applied to the issue of bat and ball standards • Laboratory measurements can predict field performance • More research needed in some areas