Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

Review
DOI: 10.1002/jst.11

Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

Rabindra Mehta1,, Firoz Alam2 and Aleksandar Subic2
1
Sports Aerodynamics Consultant, U.S.A.
2
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Australia

The aerodynamics of a tennis ball are reviewed here with reference to several
wind tunnel measurement efforts. Measurements for a wide variety of tennis Keywords:
. tennis
balls, including the ‘oversized’ balls, are presented. Flow visualization results . tennis balls
have shown that the separation location on a non-spinning tennis ball occurred . aerodynamics
relatively early, near the apex, and appeared very similar to a laminar . coefficient of drag
separation in the subcritical Reynolds number regime. The flow regime
(boundary layer separation location) appears to be independent of Reynolds
number in the range, 167,000oReo284,000. Asymmetric boundary layer
separation and a deflected wake flow, depicting the Magnus effect, have been
observed for the spinning ball. Aerodynamic force (drag and lift)
measurements for nonspinning and spinning balls are reviewed for a wide
range of Reynolds numbers and spin rates. Relatively high drag coefficients
(CDffi0.6 to 0.7), have been measured for new nonspinning tennis balls. The
observed (unexpected) behavior of the tennis ball drag coefficient is explained
in terms of a flow model that includes the drag contribution of the ‘fuzz’
elements. & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDy used for the strings. The old way of stringing a racket was to
loop the side strings round the main strings. This produced a
The game of tennis originated in France some time during the rough and smooth effect in the strings, hence the practice of
12th century and was referred to as jes de paume, ‘the game of calling ‘rough’ or ‘smooth’ to win the toss at the start of a
the palm played with the bare hand’. As early as the 12th tennis match. Only royalty and the very wealthy played the
century, a glove was used to protect the hand. Starting in the game. The oldest surviving real tennis court, located at
16th century and continuing until the middle of the 18th Hampton Court Palace, was built by King Henry VIII in
century, rackets of various shapes and sizes were introduced. approximately 1530. The present day game of lawn tennis was
Around 1750, the present configuration of a lopsided head, derived from real tennis in 1873 by a Welsh army officer,
thick gut and longer handle emerged. The original game Major Walter Wingfield.
known as ‘real tennis’, was played on a stone surface Balls used in the early days of real tennis were made of
surrounded by four high walls and covered by a sloping roof. leather stuffed with wool or hair. They were hard enough to
The shape of the new racket enabled players to scoop balls out cause injury or even death. Starting from the 18th century,
of the corners and to put ‘cut’ or ‘spin’ on the ball. The rackets strips of wool were wound tightly around a nucleus of strips
were usually made of hickory or ash and heavy sheep gut was rolled into a small ball. String was then tied in different di-
rections around the ball and a white cloth covering was sewn
around it. The original lawn tennis ball was made of India
rubber, the result of a vulcanisation process invented by
*209 Orchard Glen Court, Mountain View, CA 9404, U.S.A. Charles Goodyear in the 1850s.
E-mail: [email protected]
Today, the size, bounce, deformation and colour of the
yA substantial part of this section ‘1. Historical Background’ has been
reproduced from Balls and Ballistics, In: Materials in Sports ball must be approved by the world governing body for tennis,
Equipment, ed: Mike Jenkins, ISBN: 1 85573 599 7, by kind permission the International Tennis Federation (ITF). Ball performance
of Woodhead Publishing. characteristics are based on varying dynamic and aerodynamic

Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16 & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd 7
 Review R. Mehta, F. Alam and A. Subic

properties. Tennis balls are classified as Type 1 (fast speed), spin parameter (S), which was varied between about 0.05 and
Type 2 (medium speed), Type 3 (slow speed) and high altitude. 0.6. The extrapolated CD for the non-spinning case was found
Type 1 balls are intended for slow pace court surfaces, to be approximately 0.51. Some work on the aeromechanical
such as clay. Type 2 balls, the traditional standard tennis balls, and aerodynamic behaviour of tennis balls was conducted in
are meant for medium paced courts, such as a hard court. Type the Engineering Department at Cambridge University in the
3 balls are intended for fast courts, such as grass. High altitude late 1990 s [5,6]. One of the more significant conclusions of
balls are designed for play above 1219 m (4000 ft). these investigations was that the tennis ball would reach a
Tennis balls may be pressurised or pressureless. Today’s quasi-steady aerodynamic state very soon after leaving the
pressurised ball design consists of a hollow rubber-compound racket, in approximately 10 ball diameters, which is equivalent
core, containing a slightly pressurized gas and covered by a felt to only 3% of its trajectory [5]. So the initial transient stage,
fabric cover. The hourglass ‘seam’ on the ball is a result of the when the ball is still deformed and the flow around it is still
adhesive drying during the curing process. Once removed from developing, will not generally make a significant contribution
its pressurised container, the gases within a pressurised ball to the overall flight path. Based on comparisons with Achen-
begin to leak through the core and fabric and the ball even- bach’s [7,8] drag measurements on rough spheres, it was esti-
tually loses bounce. Pressureless balls are filled with micro- mated that the critical Reynolds number for a tennis ball
cellular material. Subsequently, pressureless balls wear from would be about 85 000, based on a ‘nap’ or ‘fuzz’ height of
play, but do not lose bounce through gas leakage. As a cost- about 1 mm. It was therefore deduced that for Reynolds
saving measure, pressureless balls are often recommended for numbers normally encountered during a serve, 100
people who play infrequently. 000oReo200 000 (corresponding to a serving velocity range
The tennis ball must have a uniform outer surface con- of 26oUo46 m/s [93.6oUo165.5 km/h]), the ball would be
sisting of a fabric cover and be white or yellow in colour. Ball in the supercritical regime giving a drag coefficient of ap-
seams must be free of stitches. All balls must weigh more than proximately 0.3 to 0.4. However, recent measurements on non-
56.0 g and less than 59.4 g. Types 1 and 2 ball diameters must spinning tennis balls [9–14] showed that the drag coefficient
be between 6.541 cm and 6.858 cm; Type 3 balls must be be- was higher and appeared to be independent of Reynolds
tween 6.985 cm and 7.302 cm in diameter. number.
It was in fact the flight of a tennis ball that first inspired
scientists to think and write about sports ball aerodynamics.
Newton [1] noted how the flight of a tennis ball was affected by 2.1 Effects of Fuzz
spin and he wrote ‘I remembered that I had often seen a tennis
ball y describe such a curveline. For, a circular as well as a Chadwick and Haake [15] obtained tennis ball CD mea-
progressive motion being communicated to it by that stroke, surements using a force balance mounted in a wind tunnel. The
its part on that side, where the motions conspire, must press initial measurements gave a CD of approximately 0.52 for a
and beat the contiguous air more violently than on the other, standard tennis ball and it was found to be independent of Re
and there excite a reluctancy and reaction of the air pro- over the range, 200 000oReo270 000. Chadwick and Haake
portionably greater’. Over 200 years later, Rayleigh [2] in a [16] and Haake et al. [9] reported that CDffi0.55 over the same
paper entitled On the Irregular Flight of a Tennis Ball, com- Re range for a standard tennis ball, a pressureless ball and a
mented that ‘y a rapidly rotating ball moving through the air larger ball. The difference between the two reported CD levels
will often deviate considerably from the vertical plane’. He is attributed to the technique used to measure the ball diameter
added the following interesting thoughts: ‘y if the ball rotate, [5]. Chadwick and Haake [15] used an outer (projected) dia-
the friction between the solid surface and the adjacent air will meter, which included the nap or fuzz height. Their results also
generate a sort of whirlpool of rotating air, whose effect may showed that the tennis ball CD could be increased (by raising
be to modify the force due to the stream’. Despite all this early the fuzz) or decreased (by shaving off the fuzz) by up to 10%
attention when the first review article on sports ball aero- [9,15,16].
dynamics was published [3], no detailed scientific studies on More recently, Alam et al. [12,17,18] conducted a series
tennis balls had been reported in the open literature. of experimental investigations on more than 12 different
tennis balls used in various tournaments around the world,
shown in Figure 1. The objectives of these studies were to
2. TENNIS BALL AERODYNAMICS STUDIES TO DATE verify previously published results and to quantify the spin
effects on tennis ball aerodynamics. Physical dimensions of
The first published study of tennis ball aerodynamics was these balls are shown in Table 1. Alam et al. [12,17] reported
written by Stepanek [4] who measured the lift and drag coef- that the average drag coefficient for non-spinning new tennis
ficients on a spinning tennis ball simulating the topspin lob. balls varies between 0.55 and 0.65 (see Figure 2). These values
The aerodynamic forces were determined by projecting spin- are slightly higher compared to previous studies [4,9,15].
ning tennis balls into a wind tunnel test section. Empirical However, recent measurements conducted by Mehta strongly
correlations for the lift and drag coefficients (CL and CD) were support the findings of Alam et al. A detailed explanation is
derived in terms of the spin parameter (S) only; it was con- given below in the discussion section. In addition, both in-
cluded that a Reynolds number dependence could be ne- vestigations attempted to quantify the effects of seam or-
glected. Stepanek measured values of between 0.55 and 0.75 ientation (as a tennis ball possesses complex seam) on drag
for CD, and between 0.075 and 0.275 for CL, depending on the coefficients.

8 www.sportstechjournal.com & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16
Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

Figure 1. Balls used for experimental measurements [13].

2.2 Effects of Seam A study conducted by Mehta and Pallis [11] at Reynolds
numbers between 46 000 and 161 000 on two Wilson US Open
Unlike cricket balls and baseballs [3], the seam on a tennis tennis balls using quantitative measurements and flow visua-
ball is indented and the cover surface is very rough, thus ob- lisation concluded that there were no significant effects of the
scuring or overwhelming any seam effects. Although ball seam seam on the aerodynamic properties of tennis balls. They also
orientation can affect the flight and trajectory of other sports reported that for Re4150 000, the data in the transcritical
balls, these effects were not significant on the tennis ball. regime for each ball can be averaged to give a single value for

Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16 & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd www.sportstechjournal.com 9
 Review R. Mehta, F. Alam and A. Subic

Table 1. Physical dimensions for some widely used tennis balls [13].

Ball name Mass (gm) Diameter (mm)

Bartlett 57 65.0
Wilson Rally 2 57 69.0
Wilson US Open 3 58 64.5
Wilson DC 2 59 64.5
Slazenger 1 57 65.5
Slazenger 4 57 65.5
Dunlop 3 TI 57 65.5
Kennex Pro 57 64.0
Tretorn Micro X 58 65.0
Penn Tennis Master series 58 63.5
Tretorn Plus 58 64.5
Dunlop 2 Grand Prix 57 65.5

Figure 4. Orientation of seam towards wind direction, Wilson US

Open 3 [12].

2.3 Effects of Larger Diameter

Serve has become a dominant factor influencing the out-

comes of tennis games as the ball travels very fast and the
Figure 2. Drag coefficients as function of Reynolds number for a series
returning player and spectators cannot follow the flight of the
of new tennis balls [13]. ball. To slow down the serve, the ITF decided in the 1990 s to
start field testing of a slightly larger ‘oversized’ tennis ball. This
decision was instigated by a concern that the serving speed in
(men’s) tennis had increased to the point where the serve
dominates the game. The fastest recorded serve was produced
by Greg Ruzedski in March 1998, measured at 66.6 m/s or
240 km/h [19]. The main evidence for the domination of the
serve in men’s tennis has been the increase in the number of
sets decided by tie breaks at the major tournaments [9]. This is
particularly noticeable on the faster grass courts, such as those
used at Wimbledon. Today, players not only can serve at very
high speeds but also can impart high spin rates. Alam and
Subic [20] compiled data from one of the major tournaments
held in the U.S.A. The entire tournament was filmed using a
high speed camera. The average speed and spin introduced by
some of the renowned tennis players are shown in Table 2a.
Figure 3. Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for new tennis balls
Generally, if the diameter of the ball is larger, the drag
in transcritical regime [11].
force will be greater due to the larger projected frontal area.
A larger diameter ball, such as the Wilson Rally 2 (69 mm
diameter compared to a regular diameter of 64.5 mm) was
the CD and these data are presented in Figure 3. These findings developed (see Figure 5). Tests conducted by Mehta and Pallis
have been confirmed by Alam et al. [12–14]. The study was [10], Pallis and Mehta [21], Haake et al. [9] and Alam et al.
based on six new tennis balls with four different seam or- [12–14] indicated that there is no significant variation in drag
ientations as shown in Figure 4. The study showed that the coefficient of larger diameter ball compared to regular sized
seam orientation has minimal effect at high Reynolds numbers balls. The important point to note is that the CD values for the
(over 92 000 or 80 km/h speed). However, an average of 8% larger balls are comparable to those for the regular balls. Of
drag coefficient variation due to seam orientation was found at course, this is not all that surprising because a simple scaling of
lower Reynolds numbers (below 80 km/h speed). the size should not affect the CD, as long as other parameters,

10 www.sportstechjournal.com & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16
Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

This trajectory plot illustrates the significance of the reduction

in CD, on a typical tennis stroke. It was shown that if the drag
coefficient of the worn ball was reduced even further, then the
ball would travel faster through the air, and give the receiver a
significantly shorter time to react to the shot.
Mehta and Pallis [11] and Haake et al. [21] also studied the
effects of spinning balls. They initially measured aerodynamic
properties at spin rate of 1–4 revs/sec for a larger diameter

Figure 5. Comparison of a ‘normal’ sized tennis ball (a) to the Table 2a. Average speed and spin rate for some male tennis
oversized ball (b) with a 6.5% larger diameter; [13]. players [20].

Average speed Average spin

such as the surface characteristics (e.g. the fuzz), are not al-
Player name (km/h) (rpm) No. serve
tered significantly. As mentioned earlier, the drag on the
oversized ball will increase by an amount proportional to the Andre Agassi 164 2249 9
projected frontal (cross-section) area, and the desired effect of Mark Philippoussis 198 2198 3
increasing the flight time for a given serve velocity will be Pete Sampras 193 2699 11
Tomas Muster 169 2754 8
attained. However, Alam et al. [12] found that the Bartlett ball
Michael Chang 180 1677 7
with a diameter of 65 mm has the highest drag coefficient (over Tim Henman 193 1548 2
15%). A close visual inspection revealed that the Bartlett ball
has a prominent seam (width and depth) compared to other
regular balls.
Table 2b. Average speed and spin rate for some female tennis
players [20].
3. AERODYNAMICS OF SPINNING TENNIS BALLS
Average speed Average spin
Modern day tennis players not only serve very fast but also Player Name (km/h) (rpm) No. serve
spin the ball at a high rate (see Table 2). Spinning can affect Venus Williams 151 2598 8
the aerodynamic drag and lift of a tennis ball, and thus the Anna Kournikova 146 2250 12
motion and trajectory of the ball. The so-called ‘Magnus Monica Seles 153 1287 9
effect’ on a sphere is well-known in fluid mechanics. In tennis, Lindsay Davenport 145 2678 9
apart from the flat serve where there is zero or very little spin Mary Jo Fernandez 138 601 9
imparted to the ball, almost all other shots involve the ball Martina Hingis – 2103 5
rotating around some axis. In addition to Stepanek’s [4] earlier
work, the aerodynamics of spinning tennis balls was recently
studied by Chadwick [22], Goodwill and Haake [23], Alam
et al. [13,14,18] and Mehta and Pallis [10,11]. In this case, apart
from the drag and gravitational forces, the lift (or side) force
also come into play because a Magnus force is generated due
to the spin.
Goodwill and Haake [23] measured the aerodynamic for-
ces of new balls, as well as some worn balls (60, 500, 1000 and
1500 impacts, which approximately corresponds to two to 50
games if only one ball is used). For the non-spinning tests, the
measurements were conducted in the Reynolds number range
of 85 000oReo250 000, which corresponds to a velocity
range of 20oUo60 m/s. Tests for the spinning conditions
(250–2750 rpm) were conducted at wind speeds of 25 and 50 m/
s. The data for the new tennis balls revealed that all balls have
similar drag coefficients (0.6–0.7). However, a heavily worn
ball exhibits a slight decrease in drag coefficient (Figure 6a).
The study also found that a worn ball produces slightly lower
lift coefficient compared to a new tennis ball. However, the
authors also noted that the differences in lift and drag coeffi-
cients of new and worn balls are negligible at high Reynolds Figure 6. (a) Drag coefficient of ten worn balls (two of each category)
numbers. Based on these findings, the authors estimated flight versus Reynolds number; (b) predicted trajectory for new and worn
trajectory for a new ball and a worn ball, shown in Figure 6b. standard size balls and an oversize ball; [23].

Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16 & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd www.sportstechjournal.com 11
 Review R. Mehta, F. Alam and A. Subic

model ball (280 mm) at Reynolds numbers between 167 the lower values of S, but this trend is not repeated at the
000–284 000 and standard tennis ball at 18–72 revs/sec under higher Reynolds number. In general, there does not appear to
range of speeds (39–66 m/s). The CD for the spinning balls are be any strong effect of wear on the ball lift coefficient.
shown in Figure 7 as a function of the spin parameter (S) for Alam et al. [13, 18] conducted a series of experimental
Reynolds number 5 105 000 and 210 000, respectively. For studies using a six component force sensor in a wind tunnel
balls subjected to 0 and 60 impacts, the CD increases with S, with a test section 3 m wide, 2 m high and 9 m long (Figure 9).
presumably due to the fuzz elements ‘standing up’ when the Twelve balls were used for spinning tests under a range of
ball is rotated [22]. Also, note that with lift generated on Reynolds numbers (46 000 and 161 000; speeds of 40–140 km/
spinning balls, there will be an additional contribution of in- h) at a spin rate of 500–3000 rpm (8.33–50 rev/s). The results
duced drag. The lower CD on the worn balls is still evident with indicate that with an increase of spin rate, the lift coefficient
the maximum difference apparent at S 5 0.15 with the new ball or down force coefficient depending on topspin or back spin
CD 5 0.67 versus 0.61 for one with 1500 impacts. For the increases. However, with an increase of Reynolds numbers, the
higher Reynolds number of 210 000, the CD for the new ball is
about 0.03–0.04 higher than that of the heavily worn ball for
all values of S. The data for the lift coefficient, CL, are shown
in Figure 8, again for Reynolds number 5 105 000 and 210
000, respectively. In general, the CL increases with S for all the
balls, as would be expected, with almost linear relations at
both values of Reynolds number. For the lower Reynolds
number, there is some effect of wear on the CL, especially at

Figure 10. Wind tunnel set-up for smoke flow visualization studies
over a 28 cm (11 in) diameter tennis ball model at NASA Ames
Research Center, flow in the wind tunnel is from left to right [11] (Image
courtesy of NASA Ames Research Center and Cislunar Aerospace Inc.).

Figure 7. Drag coefficient for spinning balls. (a) U 5 25 m/s (Re 5 105
000); (b) U 5 50 m/s (Re 5 210 000); [23].

Figure 11. Flow visualization of 28 cm diameter tennis ball model with

no spin (Re 5 167 000) at NASA Ames Research Center. Flow is from
Figure 8. Lift coefficient for spinning balls. (a) U 5 25 m/s (Re 5 105 left to right [11] (Image courtesy of NASA Ames Research Center and
000); (b) U 5 50 m/s (Re 5 210 000); [23]. Cislunar Aerospace Inc.).

Figure 12. Flow visualization on ball with topspin (counter-clockwise

rotation at 4 revs/sec, Re 5 167 000) at NASA Ames Research Center,
Figure 9. Test section of RMIT University Industrial Wind Tunnel with flow is from left to right [11] (Image courtesy of NASA Ames Research
tennis ball experimental set-up [18]. Center and Cislunar Aerospace Inc.).

12 www.sportstechjournal.com & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16
Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

Figure 13. Flow visualization on ball with underspin (clockwise

rotation at 4 revs/sec, Re 5 167 000) at NASA Ames Research Center.
Flow is from left to right [11] (Image courtesy of NASA Ames Research
Center and Cislunar Aerospace Inc.). Figure 15. Flow regimes on a sphere [11, based on 24].

Figure 14. Flow pattern around a used tennis ball, side view. (a)
Airflow around a worn ball (non-spinning); (b) airflow around a worn
ball (spinning); [18].

lift force coefficient decreases. The reduction of lift force

coefficients at high Reynolds numbers (over 120 km/h) is Figure 16. Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for smooth and
minimal. The studies also found that with an increase of spin rough spheres [11].
rate, the drag coefficient also increases. The average CD value
varies between 0.6 and 0.8, which is significantly higher com-
pared to non-spinning balls. One of the reasons for higher drag between the front and back of the ball) and a very small
coefficients of a tennis ball when spun is believed to be the contribution due to viscous or skin friction drag (due to the no
effect of fuzz elements. A close visual inspection of each ball slip condition). Achenbach [24] showed that the viscous drag
after the spin revealed that the hairy stuff (fuzz) comes out- for a smooth sphere approaching the transcritical regime was
ward from the surface (but not up-rooted) and the surface about 2% of the total drag. So the bulk of the total drag is
becomes very rough. As a result, it is believed that the fuzz accounted for by pressure drag, which in turn is determined
element generates additional drag. However, as Reynolds solely by the boundary layer separation location on the ball.
number increases, the rough surface (fuzz elements) becomes Because the separation location for the tennis ball is compar-
streamlined and reduces the drag. able to that for laminar separation at low Reynolds number,
Flow visualization photos of non-spinning and spinning one would expect the CD for the tennis ball to be around 0.5.
new and worn tennis balls are shown in Figures 10–14. The Previously measured CD values were 0.51 [4] and 0.55 [9,16].
relatively early boundary layer separation on the non-spinning Alam et al. [12–14] determined CD values between 0.55 and
ball and the asymmetric separation on the spinning balls are 0.65, except for the Bartlett ball, which has a CD value of 0.70
clearly observed in these photographs. The asymmetric se- at high Reynolds numbers. As mentioned earlier, Alam et al.’s
paration leads to the generation of the Magnus force which studies were based on 12 brand new (unused) tennis balls and
makes the ball deviate from a straight flight path. the tests were conducted using six-component force sensor in
an industrial wind tunnel. Mehta and Pallis [11] found the CD
value of around 0.62 for new tennis balls. The results agreed
4. DISCUSSION well with the findings of Alam et al. [12–14]. However, some of
the differences in the measured CD values between different
The value of CD for tennis balls is relatively high for the investigations can be attributed to the different techniques
following reasons. The turbulent boundary layer separation used to measure the ball diameter.
location for the tennis ball appears to be comparable to that It is believed that higher CD values (over 0.5) are generated
seen for laminar separation at relatively low Reynolds number. in the transcritical regime (Figure 15). Once transition
Total drag on a bluff body, such as a sphere or tennis ball, has occurred, the transition and separation locations start
consists mainly of pressure drag (due to the pressure difference to creep upstream and so the CD starts to increase. At some

Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16 & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd www.sportstechjournal.com 13
 Review R. Mehta, F. Alam and A. Subic

point the transition location moves all the way up On examining the tennis ball, the relatively rough surface
to the stagnation location and the separation location is then on the felt is readily apparent. The roughness actually results
totally determined by the development of the turbulent from the junctions of the fuzz elements, where they are em-
boundary layer. With increasing roughness, the boundary bedded within the fabric covering on the ball. However, in
layer growth rate is increased, thus resulting in earlier se- addition, the fuzz elements have a finite thickness and length
paration and higher CD. The constant level achieved by the CD and this forms an additional porous coating on the ball
in the transcritical regime is also expected to increase with through which air can still flow. So the tennis ball can be
increasing roughness, as evidenced in Achenbach’s [8] thought of as a very rough sphere with a porous coating.
measurements (data for two roughness levels are shown in Subsequently, each fuzz element will also experience pressure
Figure 16). However, Achenbach’s data show an upper limit of drag and when this is summed-up for all the fuzz elements on
CDffi0.4 on spheres with increasing roughness (figures 2 and 4 the ball’s surface, the additional drag contribution is obtained
in Achenbach [8] show this limit for a k/d range and this is herein termed the ‘fuzz drag.’ Therefore the present
of 0.0025–0.0125). The measured separation location data suggest that the contribution of the fuzz drag to the total
for this value of CD was about hsffi1001. This is still in the drag on the tennis ball is between 20 and 40%, depending on
region of the adverse pressure gradient and so one would the Reynolds number.
expect the boundary layer separation location to continue The other trend in the tennis ball CD measurements, which
moving upstream with increasing surface roughness. How- was initially puzzling, was the higher values of CD at the lower
ever, the point to note is that while the boundary layer growth Reynolds number (Figure 17). At first it was tempting to dis-
(rate of thickening) increases with increasing roughness, so card the trend by attributing it to experimental error because
does the skin friction coefficient, and the behaviour of the both the tunnel reference pressure and drag force (drag count),
separation location is then determined by the behaviour of become harder to measure accurately as the wind tunnel flow
these competing effects. The increasing skin friction coefficient speed reduces (the percentage error increases as the mean va-
makes the boundary layer more resilient to separation, thus lues are lower). Compared to the smooth sphere, the overall
opposing the tendency of a boundary layer to separate as it drag count error for the tennis balls would be lower because
thickens. So it is entirely possible that for certain types of the drag is higher. The first effect, which is perhaps not
roughness, such as the round glass beads investigated by too surprising, is the change in orientation of some of the
Achenbach for example, a limit is reached for the CD level in
the transcritical regime because the effects of the boundary
layer thickening are offset by those due to the increasing skin
friction coefficient.
In principle, though, there is no reason why the separation
location cannot continue to creep forward for other types of
roughness elements, which may be more effective at thickening
the boundary layer than increasing the skin friction coefficient.
Therefore, it is believed that the absolute limit for the turbulent
boundary layer separation location in the transcritical
regime is the same as that for laminar boundary layer se-
paration in the subcritical regime (hsffi801). Laminar boundary
layer separation occurs upstream of the sphere apex because
of the presence of an adverse pressure gradient in this region.
The adverse pressure gradient is generated in this region
Figure 17. Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for new tennis
due to an upstream influence of the separated near wake.
balls [11].
One effect which occurs is that initially, when the flow is first
turned on, the laminar boundary layer separates at the
apex and immediately a pressure minimum is generated
upstream of it due to streamline curvature effects, much in the
same way as that generated near the exit region of a contrac-
tion [25]. Once this adverse pressure gradient is generated, the
laminar boundary layer separation tends to move to that lo-
cation. This is probably the most upstream location that the
adverse pressure gradient can move up to. Assuming that a
very thick (weak) turbulent boundary layer can become as
prone to separation as a laminar layer, it will separate as soon
as it encounters an adverse pressure gradient (at about
hsffi801), just like the laminar layer. Therefore, if the location
for turbulent separation in the transcritical regime is similar to Figure 18. Effect of flow velocity on fuzz element orientation, flow
that of laminar separation in the subcritical regime, the pres- is from left to right. (a) U 5 20 m/s (45 mph, Re 5 100 000);
sure drag should also be comparable, thus giving a total drag (b) U 5 60 m/s (135 mph, Re 5 260 000); [11] (Image courtesy of
of CDffi0.5. NASA Ames Research Center and Cislunar Aerospace Inc.).

14 www.sportstechjournal.com & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16
Review of tennis ball aerodynamics

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

A comprehensive review of the published research to date

has led to the following conclusions regarding tennis ball
aerodynamics:

 The flow over a new tennis ball is generally in the

transcritical regime, where the separation location does
not move significantly with Reynolds numbers. This in turn
implies that the CD is independent of Reynolds numbers
because the total drag on a bluff body, such as a round ball,
is almost completely accounted for by the pressure drag.
Figure 19. Drag coefficient versus Reynolds number for used Wilson  The fuzz on a tennis ball causes early transition of the
US Open balls [11]. laminar boundary layer and rapid thickening of the
turbulent boundary layer. This results in the separation
location moving up to the apex region, comparable to that
filaments. As the flow velocity is increased, many of the fila- for laminar boundary layer separation at subcritical
ments that are initially standing almost perpendicular to the Reynolds number.
ball’s surface are forced to lay down due to aerodynamic drag  The high CD value at low Reynolds numbers is believed to
effects. Note how in Figure 18 the fuzz filaments, particularly be the combined effect of fuzz filament orientation and
over the front face of the ball and up to the apex region, tend Reynolds number effects on the individual filaments.
to lay down at the higher flow speed. Hence, the contribution  The average drag coefficient varies between 0.55 and 0.65
of the fuzz drag is reduced at the higher flow speeds or Rey- for new tennis balls in the Reynolds number range of 69
nolds numbers. Also, the fuzz element Reynolds number 000oReo161 000 (60–140 km/h). However, the CD value
(based on filament diameter) is estimated to be of order 20, and for worn (used) tennis balls is slightly lower compared to
this puts it in a range where the CD (for a circular cylinder) is new tennis balls.
much higher (CDffi3) and a strong function of the Reynolds  The seam orientation has negligible effect on drag coeffi-
number, with the CD decreasing with increasing Reynolds cient at high Reynolds numbers. However, some effects
number [26, figure 10.12]. Therefore the higher CD level at the have been noted at lower Reynolds numbers (8% increase
lower ball Reynolds number is attributed to the combined of CD value).
effect of fuzz filament orientation and Reynolds number effects  The average drag coefficient of a recently approved over-
on the individual filaments. sized tennis ball is comparable to that of the standard-sized
The critical role of fuzz in determining tennis ball drag was balls. However, the drag on the oversized balls is higher by
borne out succinctly in the results for the used balls (Figure virtue of the larger cross-sectional area and so the desired
19). One of the balls was used in the 1997 US Open for nine effect of ‘slowing down the game’ (increased tennis ball
games and the other used balls were played with by recrea- flight time) will be achieved. However, slowing down the
tional players for the noted number of games, using only two game can also be achieved by using a regular size Bartlett
balls at a time. The baseline data for the new Wilson US Open tennis ball as it has the highest CD value of 0.7.
ball are also shown. The 1997 US Open ball indicates a su-  Spin has significant effects on the drag and lift force
percritical behaviour with the critical Reynolds number of coefficients. The CD increases with an increase of spin rate.
approximately 100 000 and then a gradual approach towards The average CD value varies between 0.6 and 0.8 for the spin
the transcritical regime. For the balls used by the recreational rate of 8.33–50 rev/s in the Reynolds number range, 69
players, after three games the CD behaviour is comparable to 000–161 000 (60–140 km/h).
that of the new ball. However, after six games the CD is clearly  The lift or down force coefficient (depending on spinning
higher and to confirm this increase, both the used balls were direction) also increases with an increase of spin rate, as
tested and showed a very consistent trend with excellent re- expected. However, the rate of increase of CL reduces at
peatability. This initial increase in CD is known to tennis higher Reynolds numbers (161 000).
players who often refer to the felt as having ‘fluffed-up’ (fuzz is
raised), which would obviously account for the higher drag.
The fluffing-up was not apparent when these two balls were REFERENCES
examined visually, but the present CD measurements strongly 1. Newton I. New theory of light and colours. Philosophical Transactions of the
suggest that the felt texture, perhaps the internal structure, Royal Society London 1672; 1: 678–688.
must have been affected. The nine game ball clearly exhibited a 2. Rayleigh, Lord. On the irregular flight of a tennis ball. Messenger of
worn felt and therefore it was not too surprising to see a lower Mathematics 1877; 7: 14–16.
measured CD. The fact that a fluffed-up felt results in an in- 3. Mehta RD. Aerodynamics of sports balls. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
creased CD and a worn felt in a reduced CD was not too sur- 1985; 17: 151–189.
prising because the effect had been previously observed 4. Stepanek A. The aerodynamics of tennis balls – the topspin lob. American
[9,15,16]. Journal of Physics 1988; 56: 138–141.

Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16 & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd www.sportstechjournal.com 15
 Review R. Mehta, F. Alam and A. Subic

5. Cooke AJ. An overview of tennis ball aerodynamics. Sports Engineering Engineering of Sport; 10–12 June 2000, Sydney, Australia. Blackwell
2000; 3(2): 123–129. Science: Oxford, 2000; 169–176.

6. Brown TMC, Cooke AJ. Aeromechanical and aerodynamic behaviour of 16. Chadwick SG, Haake SJ. Methods to determine the aerodynamic forces
tennis balls. In: Haake SJ, Coe A, eds. Tennis Science and Technology: acting on tennis balls in flight. In: Haake SJ, Coe A, eds. Tennis Science and
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tennis Science and Technology: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tennis
Technology; 1–4 August 2000, London, U.K. Blackwell Science: Oxford, Science and Technology; 1–4 August 2000, London, U.K. Blackwell Science:
2000; 145–153. Oxford, 2000; 127–134.

7. Achenbach E. Vortex shedding from spheres. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 17. Alam F, Watkins S, Subic A. The Aerodynamic Forces on a Series of Tennis
1974; 62; 209–221. Balls. Proceedings of the 15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference;
13–17 December 2004, Sydney, Australia.
8. Achenbach E. The effects of surface roughness and tunnel blockage on the
18. Alam F, Subic A, Watkins S. An experimental study of spin effects on tennis
flow past spheres. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1974; 65: 113–125.
ball aerodynamic properties. In: Subic A, Ujihashi S, eds. The Impact of
9. Haake SJ, Chadwick SG, Dignall RJ, Goodwill S, Rose P. Engineering Technology on Sport. Australasian Sports Technology Alliance: Tokyo,
2005; 240–245
tennis – slowing the game down. Sports Engineering 2000; 3(2): 131–143.
19. Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records, Millennium Edition.
10. Mehta RD, Pallis JM. Sports Ball Aerodynamics: Effects of Velocity, Spin Guinness World Records: Bantam, 2000.
and Surface Roughness. Proceedings of the Materials and Science in Sports
Conference; 22–25 April 2001, Coronado, U.S.A. 20. Alam F, Subic A. Measurements of aerodynamic properties of tennis balls.
Journal of the Institution of Engineers 2008 (forthcoming).
11. Mehta RD, Pallis JM. The aerodynamics of a tennis ball. Sports Engineering
2001; 4(4): 1–13. 21. Pallis JM, Mehta RD. Balls and Ballistics. In: Jenkins M, ed. Materials in
Sports Equipment. Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, 2003; 100–125.
12. Alam F, Subic A, Watkins S. An Experimental Study on the Aerodynamic
Drag of a Series of Tennis Balls. Proceedings of the Sports Dynamics- 22. Chadwick SG. The Aerodynamics of Tennis Balls (Dissertation). University
Discovery and Application: The International Congress on Sports Dy- of Sheffield: Sheffield, 2003.
namics; 1–3 September 2003, Melbourne, Australia.
23. Goodwill SR, Haake SJ. Aerodynamics of tennis balls – effect of wear. In:
13. Alam F, Watkins S, Subic A. The Effects of Surface Structures on Hubbard M, Mehta RD, Pallis JM, eds. The Engineering of Sport 5:
Aerodynamic Properties of Tennis Balls. Proceedings of the 2nd BSME- Proceedings of the 5th International Sports Engineering Association
ASME International Conference on Thermal Engineering; 2–4 January Conference. Springer: Hoboken, 2004; 35–41.
2004, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
24. Achenbach E. Experiments on the flow past spheres at very high Reynolds
14. Alam F, Subic A, Watkins S. Effects of Spin on Aerodynamic Properties of number. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1972; 54: 565–575.
Tennis Balls. Proceedings of the ISEA 5th International Conference on
Sports Engineering; 13–16 September 2004, Davis, U.S.A. 25. Bell JH, Mehta RD. Contraction Design for Small Low-speed Wind Tunnels,
NASA-CR 177488. NASA: Houston, 1988.
15. Chadwick SG, Haake SJ. The drag coefficient of tennis balls. In: Subic AJ,
Haake SJ, eds. Engineering of Sport, Research, Development and 26. Smits AJ. A Physical Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons:
Innovation: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the New York, 2000.

16 www.sportstechjournal.com & 2008 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd Sports Technol. 2008, 1, No. 1, 7–16