Bat Ball Impact On Human Hand

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
FORCE TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO

ELBOW FOR A CRICKET PLAYER
Dissertation submitted to
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur
In partial fulfilment of requirement
For the award of degree
of
Master of Technology
in
Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided
Manufacturing
By
Aayush Kant
Under Guidance of
Dr. P M Padole
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
Nagpur 440010 (India)
2013
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

FORCE TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO
ELBOW FOR A CRICKET PLAYER
Dissertation submitted to
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur
In partial fulfilment of requirement
For the award of degree
of
Master of Technology
in
Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided
Manufacturing
By
Aayush Kant
Under Guidance of
Dr. P M Padole

2013
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology(VNIT)

2013
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that project work entitled FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
FORCE TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO ELBOW FOR A CRICKET
PLAYER is a bonafide work done by Mr Aayush Kant (Enrolment No
MT11CDM003), at Mechanical Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya National
Institute of Technology, Nagpur in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of degree Master of Technology in CAD-CAM. The work is comprehensive,
complete and fit for evaluation.
P. M. Padole
Project guide
Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering
Forwarded by-
Dr. I. K. Chopde
Head Department of Mechanical Engineering
VNIT, Nagpur
Date:

2013
DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that this dissertation, entitled FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS OF FORCE TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO ELBOW FOR A
CRICKET PLAYER which is being submitted to Visvesvaraya National Institute
of Technology, Nagpur for the award of the Degree of Master of Technology in
Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing is a bonafide report
of the work carried out by me under the guidance of Dr P. M. Padole, Professor,
Mechanical Engineering Dept, VNIT, Nagpur. The material contained in this report
has not been submitted to any university or institution for the award of any degree.
Mr Aayush Kant
(MT11CDM003)
Dept of Mechanical Engineering
VNIT, Nagpur

2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An equation means nothing to me unless it represents a thought of God
-Srinivasa Ramanujam
My first sense of deepest regard and heartfelt thankfulness is to the Supreme
Lord, for His innumerable gifts, for having defined my existence itself. He is to be
remembered and glorified at every moment.
A heartfelt acknowledgement and gratitude to my supervisor Prof P M
Padole who guided the whole work throught thick and thin, providing invaluable
assistance and constant encouragement, which saw the project to its completion. His
regular enquiries as to if I was enjoying myself kept me enlivened through the course
of the work. Most importantly I am grateful to him and his son for having lent their
own cricket bat for experiments, letting me see no signs of reservations from their
side for the same.
I would also like to thank Dr I K Chopde, Head of Mechanical Dept, VNIT,
Nagpur, for the facilities provided which were very much helpful to me. I would like
to thank Prof (Mrs.) Rashmi V Uddanwadikar, whose guidance in various subject
matters was very valuable.
Also I would like to acknowledge the support shown by
Prof A B Andhare, who provided me with the setup for the modal analysis
experiments. Prof Prasad Kane also guided me in the same. A lot of help was
provided by Mr Chaitanya Sargaonkar, CAD lab, VNIT regarding software
support, allowing me to run many simulations on a system in the server room in much
shorter time than my personal laptop. My sincerest thanks to him.
I express my indebtness to my classmates who enlivened the two years I spent
with them completing my masters.
Most importantly I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards those special friends
with whome I stayed through these two years. They provided me a place to stay which
I would not hesitate to regard as my second home.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF FORCE

TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO ELBOW FOR A
CRICKET PLAYER
ABSTRACT
A number of games like cricket, tennis, baseball, etc have developed a lot due
to the extensive research done in the sporting equipments. The main aim of this
project was decided as the evaulation of stresses in the hands of a cricket batsman.
Very less literature has been found to attempt such an analysis, although it can be of
great use, like predicting the location of injury, predicting the performance of the
safety wear being used by the batsman, etc. Also one of the aims of this work is to
study in detail the variation in the ball exit velocity with respect to the impact location
on the blade. Finite Element Modeling is used as an approach to predict the exit
velocity of the ball. The three simulations with various velocities of bat and ball are
considered. The results confirm the existence of sweet spot, and indicate the same
location where minimum amplitude of vibration is expected. A study on the reaction
forces on the hand due to both the bat swing as well as ball impact is done. It is seen
that reaction forces are minimum for sweet spot impact. The load on the hand is
observed to be a dynamic load, occurring for a period almost 5 times the impact
period of ball. A study is also performed on the stress distribution in the hand of the
batsman, due to these reaction forces.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Time Period of Oscillations of Bat..............................................................16
Table 3.2: The Dimensions of Various Parts of Bat.....................................................18
Table 3.3: Values of the Parameters at Various Cross Sections..................................20
Table 4.1: Orthotropic Properties of Willow Wood.....................................................25
Table 4.2: Material Properties of Ball..........................................................................26
Table 4.3: Calibration of Bat Model............................................................................27
Table 4.4: Comparison of FEA and Experimental Results..........................................28
Table 4.5: Comparison of the Modal Results with Previous Authors..........................30
Table 4.6: Variation of BEV and Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact Location......35
Table 4.6: Variation of Ball Exit Velocity and
Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact Location (17-35 Impact)...........36
Table 4.6: Variation of Ball Exit Velocity and
Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact Location (40-40 Impact)...........37
Table 5.1: A Comparison of Important Parameters
of the Cricket and Baseball Bats..........................................................51
Table 5.2: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.2m From Shoulder...........................56
Table 5.3: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.25m From Shoulder.........................57
Table 6.1: Material properties for bone and ligament (ACL)......................................71
Table 6.2: Pressures for 0.3 m Impact location, 17 35 case......................................74
Table 6.3: Pressures for 0.35 m Impact location, 17 35 case....................................74
Table 6.4: Pressures for 0.4 m Impact location, 17 35 case......................................74
Table 6.5: The maximum stresses developed in the hand
varying with time after impact for various impact locations................79
ii
Table 6.6: Comparison of the stresses in various

parts of hand for three different impacts..............................................79
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Nomenclature of a Cricket Bat....................................................................2
Figure 2.1: Bending Mode Shapes for Baseball Bat..............................................7
Figure 2.2: Location of Minimum Amplitude of Vibration ..........................................7
Figure 2.3: The Skeletal Structure of the Hand............................................................11
Figure 2.4: Internal Composition of Femur Bone........................................................12
Figure 3.1: Measurement of the Centre of
Gravity of the Bat (Inset is a zoomed view).........................................15
Figure 3.2 Measuring Moment of Inertia of Bat .........................................................16
Figure 3.3: Measuring the Coordinates........................................................................19
Figure 3.4: The Parameters Defining a Cross Section of the Bat.........................19
Figure 3.5: Bat Suspended With Strings......................................................................21
Figure 3.6: Close-up of the Sensor Setup.....................................................................21
Figure 3.7: The Accelerometer.....................................................................................22
Figure 4.1: Solid Model of Bat and Ball, Sketches Highlighted..................................25
Figure 4.2: Meshed Model of Bat and Ball..................................................................26
Figure 4.3: The First Two Bending Modes of Vibration of the Bat.............................28
Figure 4.4: The First Mode with One Node at the Constraint Point, at 9.102 Hz....29
Figure 4.5: The Second Mode with Two Nodes, at 117.92 Hz....29
Figure 4.6: The Third Mode with Three Nodes, at 538.78 Hz.....................................29
Figure 4.7: Location of Sweet Spot..............................................................................31
Figure 4.8: Impact Locations Considered for Simulation............................................33
Figure 4.9: BEV Graph for 0-35 Impact..................................................................... 35
Figure 4.10: Stress Graph for 0-35 Impact.................................................................. 35
Figure 4.11: BEV Graph for 17-35 Impact..................................................................36
Figure 4.12: Stress Graph for 17-35 Impact................................................................ 36
Figure 4.13: BEV Graph for 40-40 Impact................................................................. 37
Figure 4.14: Stress Graph for 40-40 Impact.................................................................37
iv
Figure 4.15: Impact of Ball with a Stationary Bat and

Post-Impact Wave Propagation in the Bat...........................................38
Figure 4.16: Variation of COR with Speed for Two Different Balls...........................42
Figure 4.17: Comparison of RBM and FEA results for 0-35 impact...........................42
Figure 4.18: Comparison of RBM and FEA results for 17-35 impact.........................43
Figure 4.19: Comparison of RBM and FEA results for 40-40 impact.........................43
Figure 4.20: Rebound velocities obtained using experiments by David,et al..............44
Figure 5.1: Motion of A Bat.........................................................................................47
Figure 5.2: Plot of V and v/s Time...........................................................................49
Figure 5.3: Plot of resolved forces v/s Time................................................................49
Figure 5.4: Plot of net force and direction v/s Time....................................................49
Figure 5.5: Plot of torques and couple v/s Time..........................................................49
Figure 5.6: Modelling Variation to Find the Reaction Forces.....................................54
Figure 5.7: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.2 m From Shoulder......................56
Figure 5.8: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.25 m From Shoulder....................57
Figure 5.9: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.3 m From Shoulder......................58
Figure 5.10: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.35 m From Shoulder..................59
Figure 5.11: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.4 m From Shoulder....................60
Figure 5.14: Graph of Impact Forces on the
Left Hand for All Impact Locations, 17 35 Analysis........................63
Figure 5.15: Plot of Maximum Forces Experienced
on Left and Right Hands v/s Impact Location.....................................64
Figure 5.16: Graph of Impact Forces on Right
Hand for All Impact Locations, 40 40 Analysis................................65
Figure 5.17: Graph of Impact Forces on Left
Hand for All Impact Locations, 40 40 Analysis................................66

Figure 5.18: Plot of Maximum Forces Experienced on Left
and Right Hands v/s Impact Location (for 40 40 analysis)...............67
Figure 6.1: Beam Representation of the Forearm to Estimate the Stresses.................69
Figure 6.2: The Model of Hand....................................................................................71
Figure 6.3: Patch Independent Meshing at the Wrist...................................................72
Figure 6.5: Patch Independent Meshing at the Elbow..................................................73
Figure 6.6: Stress Distribution at Time t = 2 ms..........................................................75
Figure 6.9: Stress Distribution at Time t = 9.5 ms.......................................................76
Figure 6.10: Maximum Stress in Wrist Ligaments, at Time t = 6.5 ms.......................76
Figure 6.11: Maximum Stress in Elbow Ligaments, at Time t = 9.5 ms.....................77
Figure 6.12: Normal Bending Stresses for the Forearm Bones....................................77
Figure 6.13: Region of Stress concentration................................................................78
vi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.i
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ iv
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................-1 -
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ - 2 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................. - 4 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... - 2 -
2.1 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF A BAT ................................................................................. - 6 2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF BAT ........................................................................... - 8 2.3 REACTION FORCES ON THE WRIST............................................................................... - 9 2.4 MODELLING OF HAND ............................................................................................... - 10 2.5 WORK PROPOSED ...................................................................................................... - 13 CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY.................................................................... - 6 -
3.1 MASS AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY ................................................................................ - 15 3.2 MOMENT OF INERTIA ................................................................................................ - 15 3.3 COORDINATE MEASUREMENT ................................................................................... - 18 3.4 EXPERIMENTAL MODAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. - 20 CHAPTER 4
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISBAT BALL IMPACT ........................................... - 15 -
4.1 BAT MODELLING ........................................................................................................ - 24 4.1.1 Procedure for Modelling ..................................................................................... - 24 4.1.2 Calibration of model ........................................................................................... - 27 4.2 MODAL ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... - 28 4.2.1 Comparison with Experimental Results .............................................................. - 28 4.2.2 Comparison with Previous Authors .................................................................... - 29 4.2.3 Location of Sweet Spot ....................................................................................... - 30 4.3 IMPACT SIMULATION ................................................................................................. - 31 4.3.1 Procedure for Simulation .................................................................................... - 31 4.3.2 Verification of Impact Simulation ....................................................................... - 39 -
4.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. - 45 CHAPTER 5
REACTION FORCES ON HAND ....................................................................... - 24 -
5.1 REACTION FORCES DUE TO BAT SWING .................................................................... - 47 5.1.1 Work Done by Rod Cross .................................................................................... - 47 5.1.2 Swing Force Calculations for a Cricket Bat.......................................................... - 50 5.2 FORCES DUE TO IMPACT ............................................................................................ - 54 5.2.1 Model Variations................................................................................................. - 54 5.2.2 Discussion of Results for Forces on Hand ........................................................... - 55 CHAPTER 6
STRESSES INDUCED IN HAND ....................................................................... - 47 -
6.1 EXPECTED VALUE OF STRESSES .................................................................................. - 69 6.2 MODELLING OF THE HAND ........................................................................................ - 70 6.3 SIMULATION AND RESULTS ....................................................................................... - 71 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. - 69 -
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................... - 86 APPENDIX II .......................................................................................................................... - 88 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... - 82 -
CHAPTER 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
-2-
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Cricket is a very popular bat-and-ball sport played in many countries all over
the world. It is believed to have originated inthe18th century in England. The main
equipment used in cricket is the cricket bat and ball. The laws of cricket limit the size
of the bat to not more than 96.5 cm in length and the blade to be not more than 10.8
cm wide at its widest part
[1]
. Cricket bats typically weigh from 1.1 to 1.4 kg though
there is no restriction on the weight of the bat [2].

The cricket bat consists of a handle, shoulder, blade and toe as shown in
Figure 1. Until recently, the quality of the cricket bat was based only upon the grain
structure of the face of the blade. The modern tendency is to use heavy bats since
most bats men believe that a heavier bat allows them to hit the ball farther. The blade
of the bat is commonly made of Kashmir or English willow [2].
Figure 1.1: Nomenclature of a Cricket Bat

Cricket is one of the sports, where the constantly evolving rules, do not allow
much scope for use of technological advancement to improve the game. For instance,
in baseball the bats can be either made up of solid wood or hollow aluminium barrel,
where latter gives an increased ball velocity upon impact. In 1979, when Dennis
Lillee walked onto the pitch using an aluminium bat, named the ComBat, a few
overs into the game the opposing English captain complained to the umpire that the
bat was damaging the ball. The bat was replaced with its orthodox wooden
-3-
counterpart. And soon a new rule was into place, the bat must be made of wood [3], [4].
These and many such constraints on the bat are aimed at protecting the integrity of the
game. However, within the parameters enforced by the rule, there is still a scope for
technological research to improve the design to give the batsmen an additional
advantage. It is a known fact that many of the players have a set of bats to be used for
test matches, and another set of bats to be used for one day matches and 20-20s. Other
than personal experience and preference, there is no method for the batsman to select
an appropriate bat for an appropriate version of the game, or situation within the same
game
[5]
. A design variation in the cricket bat will improve the efficiency of the shot
as well as reduce the effort the player has to put into playing the shot.
One of the parameters of paramount importance is the sweet spot which is
discussed in detail later on in the course of the work. Sweet spot is a location
primarily identified by the batsman as the best location on the bat with which the ball
can come in contact. Physicists and researchers alike have given various
interpretations of what is the sweet spot, three of them being considered as
simultaneously valid.
The purpose of this work is to study the parameters involved in characterising
a cricket bats performance, especially the location of the sweet spot, and try and find
out a relation between its three interpretations. The work will also focus its attention
on the forces involved in the process of swinging a cricket bat and hitting the ball.
Thus the total reaction forces on the batsmans hand will be studied and this will be
used for calculating the stresses developed in the hand during the course of playing
certain shots. . As far as the author could research, not much work has been done to
study the stresses developed in the hands of a batsman. This is surprising considering
the contribution such a study would lend in designing the bat, the handle of the bat,
the grip, and also study the probable causes of injury to a batsman. The work being
presented, in regard to the stress analysis of the hand, is quite elementary in its
assumptions, but at the same time presents a basic picture, which can be worked on
further, as a future scope.
-4-
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The main aims of this project are as follows:
1. Study the relationships between the three interpretations of sweet spot.
2. Study the variation of reaction forces of a cricket bat-ball impact on the
batsmans hand, with respect to the impact location of the ball on the bat.
3. Study the stress distribution on an approximate model of the batsmans hand,
and identify the location of maximum stresses.
These aims are accomplished using Finite Element Software, ANSYS Workbench.
Also the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results are verified for certain simulations as
far as possible.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
-6-
2.1 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF A BAT

Majority of researches that were studied to gain a proper background on the
subject, were found to concern with various other sports like baseball, golf and tennis.
However these were also found to be of use, since all these sports involve and impact
of ball with a certain device, which varies from sports to sports. The dynamic details
of these devices may vary, but their basic principles and mechanics will remain the
same. Moreover, it is also observed that a baseball shot is very similar to a pull shot
in cricket. Similarly it can be seen that a golf drive is very similar to a straight drive of
cricket. Pull shot is a shot which involves the maximum energy of the batsman and
hence is a shot of interest.
Van Zandt
[6]
did a significant research on baseball. The standard theory of
beams was modified to consider the non-uniform section of a baseball bat. The
normal modes for bending vibrations of the bat were calculated and the collision
problem was solved by including the effect of vibrations of the bat. One interesting
result from this work is the calculation of ball exit speed as a function of impact
position along the length of the bat. The work also showed that impacts at any point
other than the node will yield a relatively low performance, thus establishing a region
which is called the sweet spot.
The sweet spot has three interpretations. The sweet spot is commonly known
as the location on the bat that produces maximum batted-ball velocity. Often, it is also
understood as the location on the bat that produces no sting to the batters hands. A
third interpretation of the sweet spot is the location on the bat where minimum
amplitude of fundamental vibrations is obtained. Physicists also think of the sweet
spot as the optimal location on the bat that produces best overall results.
A vibrational analysis of a bat helps to understand the region of minimum
amplitude of vibration. The Figure 2.1 shows first three bending modes of vibration
for baseball bat, as studied by Sutton and Sherwood
occurs, it lasts for roughly 0.001s
[8]
[7]
. However when the impact
. Thus only the first two modes of vibration are
activated. The higher modes of vibration therefore do not play much role in an impact.
It can be seen that the region between the second node of the first mode and the third
node of the second mode is the region where the amplitude of the vibration will be
-7-
minimum if both modes are excited simultaneously. This is because of the close
location of both these nodes as shown in Figure 2.2 [9].
Figure 2.1: Bending Mode Shapes for Baseball Bat
Figure 2.2: Location of Minimum Amplitude of Vibration

Nathan
[10]
established a very important principle, which has been used by
most of the researchers in future in their studies of impact of hand held instruments. It
was shown in this work, that any effect of clamping action of hands at the end of the
bat is felt at the impact point only after the ball leaves the bat. Therefore, for all
-8-
testing and modelling purposes, a free-free boundary condition of the bat is a

legitimate approach. A video demonstration of a baseball player hitting a home run,
even though his bat slips from his hand is found on the website of Nathan
[11]
, which
establishes this claim further. The same conclusion is further claimed by Noble and
Eck [12].
Many researchers have studied the various interpretations of the sweet spot
and have tried to find a correlation between them. Hariharan and Srinivasan
[13]
have
carried out a similar investigation for a cricket bat and have found that the region of
minimum amplitude of vibration indeed the region where the batted ball-speed is the
maximum. This study was performed using FEM software ANSYS/LS DYNA, and
compared to modal analysis done using ANSYS.
David Theil, et al [14] in their research established the relationship between the
jerk a batsman experiences at his wrist to the location where the ball impacts on the
wrist. Using 3 axis accelerometers mounted on the bat and the wrists, ball strikes were
recorded for defensive drives along the ground. It is found that the sweet spot impacts
give low levels of vibrations in the wrist sensors.
2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF BAT

Mustone et al
[15]
developed a finite element model to predict the performance of
baseball bats. Mass, moment of inertia and centre of gravity were calculated
experimentally. The sweet spot on the bats was obtained using a hitting machine.
Frequencies of the bats were obtained by conducting modal tests on the bats.
HyperMesh was used for building the geometries of the wood and aluminium bats,
LS-DYNA was used for analysis, and LS-Post and the ETA Postprocessor were used
for post-processing. The bat models were calibrated by comparing the mass, MOI,
centre of gravity and the vibrational properties (natural frequencies) of the bats with
experimental values. Differences between wood and aluminium bats in terms of
performance and contact time were studied. Two important conclusions from their
study were:
-9-
There was no difference in the batted-ball velocity when the bat was given a
purely rotation or purely translational motion towards the ball.
Modal Analysis was an effective tool for the calibration of FEA models to
predict their batted-ball performance.
2.3 REACTION FORCES ON THE WRIST

When the reaction forces on the hand of the batsman is to be considered, it is
important to understand that there are two independent causes of these reaction forces.
First cause is the impact of the ball on the bat, which results in a jerk on the wrist.
And second is the rotation of bat itself. Studies concerning themselves to finding out
these reaction forces are not much, but one researcher Rod Cross has done much
study in regards to both these subject matters.
In one of his works [9], Cross has experimentally studied the force waveforms,
using piezoelectric ceramic discs taped onto the outer surface of the baseball bat
handle. The experimental apparatus gave the force output not in terms of the force,
but a force waveform in Volts. Moreover, the experiment was conducted by swinging
the bat to a stationary, suspended baseball, with the ball not being struck with the
usual vigour normally associated with the game of baseball. In the words of Cross,
the results obtained by the experiment may not give quantitatively accurate results but
a qualitatively same result, since the physics is independent of the reference frame.
Yet, the qualitative conclusions obtained through the course of the study are worth
mentioning. The hand is found to exert a significant force on the bat even when the
ball has not left contact with the bat. The effect of this phenomenon is not much when
concerned with the motion of the ball, but it has significant effect on the behaviour of
the bat during and after the impact.
The dominant vibrations induced in a hand-held bat are heavily damped
versions of the fundamental and second modes of a free bat. The vibration amplitude
of both modes is sufficiently large to cause pain for any impact out-side the sweet
spot zone. The amplitudes of these modes are minimised for impacts at the respective
barrel nodes, but an impact at either one of these modes will excite the other mode.
- 10 -
An impact at the fundamental node is about optimum since the amplitudes of both the
fundamental and second modes remain small. For impacts outside the sweet spot
zone, the second mode amplitude is largest under the right hand (for a right-handed
batter) and smallest near the node under the left hand. The node of the fundamental
mode is also located under the left hand for a hand-held bat.
The sweet spot of a wood baseball bat was found to represent an impact zone
of width about 3 cm where the force and the impulse (i.e., the time integral of the
force) transmitted to the hands are both minimised.
In another work
[16]
, interestingly done almost a decade later, using very
simple mechanics, Cross studied the force due to the bat swing motion. A right
handed player swinging a baseball bat of known configurations was filmed from the
top using a high speed camera. The almost spiral motion that the bat undergoes is then
studied by splitting the video into constituent frames, and analysing the velocity of the
bat. Using centripetal and tangential accelerations, the net force being exerted by both
the hands is obtained. The couple being applied by the two hands is obtained by
studying the angular acceleration and the torques acting on the bat. The net force
being exerted by both the hands and the couple are used to find out the net force being
exerted by each hand.
Due to the similarity of a baseball shot to a pull shot of cricket, as discussed
previously, it is possible to extend this technique to a pull shot and use the values
obtained by Cross, with small modifications, for a study of the swing of a cricket bat.
This has been discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
2.4 MODELLING OF HAND

The internal mechanical structure of the hand is not a simple one. Various
components like bone, muscles, ligaments and tendons are involved in providing a
mechanical support. The manners in which these components interact with each other
are also very complex. Through the skeletal system the bones form the backbone of
the hand, quite literally. The bones are further supported by muscles which act not
only like actuators, helping in the relative motion between the bones, but also
- 11 -
transmitting forces, as a good mechanical support system. The tendons are like
connecting linkages between the bones and muscles, having very complex geometries
and equally complex material composition. The ligaments perform the same functions
between bones. In order to reduce the complexity of the situation at hand, the focus
was directed towards only bones and ligaments.
The skeletal structure of the hand is shown in Figure 2.3. It shows the various
bones and their interactions. The complexity at the wrist is worth noting. The wrist
region along consists of 8 bones together called as the carpals. From these carpals
emerge the metacarpals which are located in the region of the palm. The metacarpals
lead to the digits, or phalanges, which are the portions of the five fingers. The carpals,
at the other end are connected to two bones which form the forearm of the human
arm. These two bones are called the radius and the ulna. The radius and ulna through
ligaments at the elbow joint are connected to the humerus, the long bone from the
elbow to the shoulders.
Figure 2.3: The Skeletal Structure of the Hand

Each bone in itself is a complex structure as shown in Figure 2.4. The bone consists of
various components. Primarily, the bone is an inhomogeneous composite material
having anisotropic material properties, depending not only on its composition but also
- 12 -
distribution within a structure. All bones have a dense cortical shell and less dense
cancellous inner component. The bone surface is surrounded by perisoteum, a
membrane providing a network of blood vessels and nerves. The bone, like any good
composite material, has strength higher than either of the two main components, the
softer component prevents the stiff one from cracking and the stiff one prevents the
softer one from yielding [17].
Figure 2.4: Internal Composition of Femur

The ligament is a fibrous band of soft tissue joining two bones of a joint. It has
three biomechanical functions, (i) to resist external load, (ii) to guide relative motions
of the two bones, and (iii) to control maximum range of joint motions. The ligaments
are known to buckle under compression and support no load. Therefore only tensile
properties are relevant
[17]
. The ligament is generally taken as a viscoelastic material,
absorbing more energy and requiring more force to rupture as the loading rate is
increased. Most of the material properties available in research papers are regarding
Anterior Cruciate Ligament, (ACL), present in the human knee.
- 13 -
2.5 WORK PROPOSED

On the basis of the literature survey done, a strategy is devised to accomplish
the goals of the project, as discussed in the previous chapter. This would comprise the
following steps:
(i)
Experimentation to measure the characteristics of a cricket bat.
(ii)
Generating a physical model of the bat, and calibrating it against the actual
bat using the characteristics experimentally obtained.
(iii)
Performing a Modal analysis using FEA, and comparing the results to

experimental modal analysis. Also locate the sweet spot.
(iv)
Using the calibrated model to simulate ball impacts at different locations

for different bat and ball velocities, thus verifying the sweet spot to be a
location which gives maximum batted ball velocity.
(v)
Using the simulation to calculate the reaction forces on the wrist, verifying
that sweet spot impacts give minimum jerk to the batsman.
(vi)
Using the technique developed by Cross to obtain the force required to

swing a bat.
(vii)
Modelling the hand and simulating a stress analysis of the same.
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
- 15 -
3.1 MASS AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY

There are no laws which govern the mass of the bat, but usually bats used by
cricketers weigh around 1.1 to 1.4 kg. The mass of the bat was measured to nearest
0.001 kg using a digital weighing machine. The bat weighed 1.360 kg.
The centre of gravity is the point where the whole weight of a body is
supposed to act. It is possible to hold a body just by giving support at the centre of
gravity. Thus a simple way to locate the centre of gravity of any body is to try and
balance it on a thin edge. The point, over which the body can be balanced, is the
location of the centre of gravity. Figure 3.1 shows the bat being studied, balanced at
the centre of gravity. The centre of gravity was found to be located at a point 23 cm
from the shoulder of the bat.
Figure 3.1: Measurement of the Centre of Gravity of the Bat (Inset is a zoomed view)
3.2 MOMENT OF INERTIA

The moment of inertia by definition is the resistance to the angular
acceleration of an object. The moment of inertia of a body is dependent on the mass
of the body as well as the distribution of the mass along the length of the body. The
ASTM standards for measuring the moment of Inertia are defined for a baseball, in
the standard F1881. For measuring the moment of inertia the bat needs to be
suspended such that it is allowed to oscillate freely about its tip. For this purpose the
bat may be clamped at the handle.
- 16 -
In this study, the bat was tied using a thread of a very short length, so as not to
affect the time period. The bat is given a small angle rotation (less than 15 ), to allow
the small angle approximation to hold valid. Care has to be taken that bat undergoes
oscillation in its own plane, and does not oscillate like a conical pendulum. The
Figure 3.2 shows the readings being taken for a suspended cricket bat.
Figure 3.2 Measuring Moment of Inertia of Bat

Time taken for 20 oscillations is observed using stopwatch, and averaged over
three readings to reduce errors. The Table 3.1 shows the time periods for the three
readings, and their averaged value.
Table 3.1: Time Period of Oscillations of Bat
Sr No. Time for 20 oscillations (s)
Time period (s)
1
33
1.65
32
1.6
30
1.5
Average Time Period
1.58
- 17 -
The moment of Inertia of the bat can be calculated using the formula given in Eq 3.1.
(Eq 3.1)
Where,
Ipivot
Moment of Inertia about the pivot point,
Time Period,
Mbat
Mass of the bat,
Acceleration due to gravity, and
Distance of the pivot from the Centre of Gravity.
Substituting the values in the Eq 3.1, as,

T
1.58 s
Mbat
1.36 kg
9.81 m/s2
length of handle + distance of CG from shoulder
0.32 + 0.23
0.55 m
Thus, the moment of inertia is obtained as,
=
=
1.58 1.36 9.81 0.55

4
0.4640 kgm2
In order to calculate the moment of inertia about the centre of mass, the parallel axis
theorem can be used as stated in Eq 3.2.
=
Where, all symbols hold their normal meanings.
(Eq 3.2)
- 18 -
Thus, the moment of inertia about centre of mass is obtained as,

ICM
0.4640 (1.36 0.552)
0.0526 kgm2
3.3 COORDINATE MEASUREMENT

In order to model the cricket bat, it is required to know the dimensions, and
coordinates of the critical points on the bat. For this purpose, the task of finding out
the coordinates of the bats was undertaken.
First of all, the lengths of various parts of the bat were measured. This has
been tabulated and shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: The Dimensions of Various Parts of Bat
Length of handle
0.255 m
Length of Shoulder curve
0.042 m
Length of blade of bat
0.533 m
Length of toe
0.02 m
Total length of bat
0.85 m
Diameter of Handle
0.036 m
Width of the blade (assumed constant)
0.106 m
This was done by keeping the bat on a flat surface, above a sheet of drawing
paper, and measuring the heights of the points on the surface using a set square, by a
simple geometric procedure. The sheet of paper was used for directly recording the
measurements, such that a projection image to the scale of 1:1 was obtained on it. The
sheet is shown in Figure 3.3.
- 19 -
Z axis
X axis
Figure 3.3: Measuring the Coordinates

Measurements were made considering the top edge of blade as the origin. X axis was
considered as being along the blade, Y axis as perpendicularly out of the sheet, as
shown in Figure 3.3. At different values of X coordinates, the parameters defining the
cross section of the bat were measured. These parameters are a, b and c, as
shown in Figure 3.4. Parameter c was used to calculate the height of the top central
spline, h, using the formula given in Eq 3.3
=
5.3
width/2
Figure 3.4: The Parameters Defining a Cross Section of the Bat

The Table 3.3 shows the data obtained through this procedure:
(Eq 3.3)
- 20 -
Table 3.3: Values of the Parameters at Various Cross Sections

X
0
10
20
22.5
25
27.5
30
32.5
35
37.5
40
42.5
45
47.5
50
52.5
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1
0.7
2.7
3.6
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.1
3.6
3.1
2.6
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
4.2
5.4
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.7
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.7
6.2
5.6
5.1
4.1
3.6
At each section, 4 data points have been considered. They are the four vertices
of the quadrilateral shown in Figure 3.4, which defines a cross section of the bat. The
coordinates of these four data points can be easily obtained using the parameters. The
x coordinate is directly available. Z coordinate is zero for the mid-section data points
and equal to half the width (i.e. 0.053 m) for the edge data points. And Y coordinates
are either a, b or h depending on the location of the data point. Thus for each section
coordinates of four data points are obtained.
The coordinates of the data points for the cylindrical handle are easily
obtained using the width and length mentioned in Table 3.2.
3.4 EXPERIMENTAL MODAL ANALYSIS

Modal analysis is a procedure, which describes a structure in terms of its
dynamic characteristics. The procedure involves inducing vibrations in a structure by
applying a dynamic load to it. This can be done by hitting it with an impact hammer
or by using a shaker. The response of the structure is recorded as a time trace using an
accelerometer. In Modal Analysis, this time-domain response is then transformed into
the frequency domain by using Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT), and the Frequency
- 21 -
Response Functions (FRFs) are computed. The FRFs show the response of the
structure in terms of the frequency domain. The FRFs also have peaks in the
frequency plot which correspond to the peaks in the time trace. These peaks
correspond to the natural frequencies of the structure. Therefore, the FRFs can be
used to obtain the natural frequencies of the structure directly. Also by obtaining
many FRFs along the length of the structure, it is possible to obtain the mode shapes,
and hence the location of the nodes of the structure directly.
However, in this study, the purpose of experimental modal analysis is to use it
as a tool in order to verify the model. Numerical modal analysis using FEA can be
used to obtain the mode shapes and node locations.
The bat under consideration is suspended using strings at the end. This
maintains a free-free boundary condition. The accelerometer is placed near the blade
end of the bat. Impacting is done using a hammer at several locations, keeping the
accelerometer at the same location. Figure 3.5 and 3.6 show the setup for the modal
analysis.
Figure 3.5: Bat Suspended With Strings.
Accelerometer
Sensor
Magnetic pick up
Figure 3.6: Close-up of the Sensor Setup.
- 22 -
The accelerometer sensor must be bound tightly to the surface of the object being
analysed, otherwise, the vibrations will not be transferred properly to the sensor, and
it will give erroneous results. For this purpose the manufacturer provides a magnetic
pickup on which the sensor can be mounted through a screw arrangement. This
ensures a proper transmission of vibrations. The magnetic pickup can be easily
mounted on metallic machine parts, but not on a wooden bat. For this reason, a small
steel washer was bonded on the bat using a strong adhesive, in this case commercially
available Quickfix. The magnetic pickup was mounted on it, and sensor was fixed to
the magnetic pickup.
The frequencies are measured up to a span of 800 Hz. The spectrum readings
on the screen are observed. The cursor is moved to the peak of the FRF. The cursor
directly gives the frequency at the point. This is noted to be the first bending mode of
vibration for the cricket bat. The Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the accelerometer and the
screen recordings.
Figure 3.7: The Accelerometer
Figure 3.8: Screen Readings

The first bending mode of vibration is obtained at 225 Hz.
CHAPTER 4
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS BAT-BALL IMPACT
- 24 -
4.1 BAT MODELLING

4.1.1 Procedure for Modelling
Using the data points calculated in the last chapter, it is possible to obtain a
solid model of the bat. This sub-section delineates the procedure which is used for
obtaining such a model.
The modelling and analysis was carried out on the commercially available
software ANSYS Workbench 14.5. ANSYS Workbench 14.5 provides a platform on
which various analyses can be done, and even combined with each other. ANSYS
workbench combines the strength of the core product solvers of ANSYS with the
project management tools necessary to manage the project workflow. In ANSYS
Workbench, analyses are built as systems, which can be combined into a project. The
project is driven by a schematic workflow that manages the connections between the
systems.
The solver module used for this work was ANSYS Explicit Dynamics, which
uses an AUTODYN solver. In dynamic problems, always an explicit solver is
preferred over an implicit solver. This has certain reasons. The differences between
implicit and explicit solver is discussed separately in Appendix 1.
An Explicit Dynamics analysis system provides its own modelling software
called ANSYS Design Modeller. The modelling of the cricket bat was done using
ANSYS Design Modeller.
Using the data points calculated a sketch profile is created for the middle
longitudinal section of the bat. A similar profile is created for the edge of the bat. The
two profiles are combined to create the volume of half of the bat, using Skin/Loft
feature. A solid with its top and bottom surfaces fitting through both the profiles is
obtained. This solid is mirrored about the central section to create the complete blade
of the bat. Proper dimensions are then used to create the handle of the bat.
Modelling of ball is done as a simple sphere, with radius 3.58 cm. The value
for the radius of the ball was selected such that its mass and circumference lie within
- 25 -
the range defined by the laws
[18]
. Figure 4.1 shows the solid models of bat and ball.
The two sketches which were made using the data points are highlighted.
Figure 4.1: Solid Model of Bat and Ball, Sketches Highlighted
The solid model once created is used for meshing. The meshing operation is
performed using ANSYS Mechanical. Prior to meshing operation, it is required to
define the material models which will be used for defining the bat and ball.
A cricket bat is typically made of willow wood. The cricket bat being used
was specifically a Kashmir willow bat. Wood is a linear orthotropic elastic material.
So its material properties are different in the three principal directions, longitudinal,
radial and transverse. Moreover wood being a natural material, its density varies from
species to species. The orthotropic properties used are listed in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Orthotropic Properties of Willow Wood
Density
Young's Modulus
Shear Modulus
Poisson's Ratios
(kg/m3)
(GPa)
(GPa)
Ex
Ey
Ez
xy
yz
xz
Gxy
Gyz
Gzx
650
13.3 0.883 7.06 0.015 0.6 0.16 1.33 0.133 1.33
To define the material properties of ball a simple elastic model is not sufficient. There
is a time-dependent energy loss associated with deforming of ball. Thus to define the
- 26 -
dynamics of mechanical behaviour during and after contact, a visco-elastic material is

defined. The visco-elastic material is associated with a time dependent shear modulus
and a constant bulk modulus, K. Hence it represents a strain rate dependent elastic
behaviour. Eq 4.1 shows the time dependency of the shear modulus.
( )=
+(
(Eq 4.1)
Where,
G
Long term shear modulus,
G0
Instantaneous (short term) shear modulus,
viscoelastic decay constant.
The material properties used to define the ball are summarized in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Material Properties of Ball
Density
(kg/m3) 814
Instantaneous shear modulus
(MPa)
41
Long term shear modulus
(MPa)
11
Bulk Modulus
(MPa)
69
Decay Constant
(s-1)
10500
The meshing is done using patch conforming method for 4 node tetrahedral elements.
The bat is meshed using 2203 elements and the ball using 831 elements. Figure 4.2
shows a meshed model.
Figure 4.2: Meshed Model of Bat and Ball.
- 27 -
4.1.2 Calibration of model

In order to check whether the model represents the actual bat closely, certain
parameters of the model need to be checked against the actual bat. This process is
called as modelling. In chapter 3, these parameters were defined and estimated using
experimental analyses for the actual bat. These parameters are the mass of the bat,
location of centre of gravity of the bat, the mass moment of inertia of the bat and
natural frequencies.
The values of these parameters for the model are recorded and compared with
experimental values. Although a mention of the first mode of vibration is done, a
detailed procedure of modal analysis and the resulting conclusions on the validity of
the model are explained in the next section.
A comparison between the calibration parameters for the model and the actual bat are
presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Calibration of Bat Model
Experimental
Property
Unit
value
Mass
(kg)
1.360
Location of Centre of
(mm)
230
mass
from the shoulder
(kgm2)
Moment of inertia
about centre of
0.0526
mass
(Hz)
First mode of vibration
223
Free-Free boundary
FEA
value
1.347
241
0.044
218.45
It can be seen that the model gave good results when compared with experimental
values. Thus, the model is validated.
- 28 -
4.2 MODAL ANALYSIS

4.2.1 Comparison with Experimental Results
A very important means of calibration of the model is modal analysis. The
experimentally measured fundamental bending frequencies are compared to those
obtained using FEA.
In the workbench schematic, a new system for modal analysis is generated
with the same geometry and material properties as earlier generated for explicit
dynamic analysis.
The same model is used. A free-free boundary condition is simulated by not
giving any constraints to the model. Ten modes are extracted within the frequency
range of 0 2000 Hz. Out of the ten obtained mode shapes, first six mode shapes will
give 0 frequency. That is because these represent the six possible rigid body motions,
three displacements and three rotations about the principal axes. The next frequencies
indicate the bending modes about XY plane and about XZ plane. Out of these the
bending modes about XY plane are of interest for this case. Hence, the first two
frequencies of the modes of vibration are obtained as 218.45 Hz and 733.54 Hz.
Figure 4.3 shows the first two bending modes about XY plane, and Table 4.4
compares the FEA and experimental results for the fundamental mode.
Node 2
Node 1
218.45 Hz
Node 3
Node 1
Node 2
733.54 Hz
Figure 4.3: The First Two Bending Modes of Vibration of the Bat
Table 4.4: Comparison of FEA and Experimental Results.
FEA analysis
Experimental analysis
218.45 Hz
225 Hz
- 29 -
4.2.2 Comparison with Previous Authors

A few of the previous authors who have done a modal analysis for cricket bat
have used a fixed-free condition, like a cantilever beam. Although, it is understood by
many authors that a free-free condition is to be considered for modelling purposes, a
few are still of the belief that proper modal results will be given for a cantilever
boundary condition. For the sake of checking the modal results obtained, a fixed-free
modal analysis is performed, to compare the results with these authors.
The top surface of the cylindrical handle is given a fixed support. Again ten
modes are extracted within the same range of frequencies. The three mode shapes
obtained are shown in figures 4.4 to 4.6.
Figure 4.4: The First Mode with One Node at the Constraint Point, at 9.102 Hz
Figure 4.5: The Second Mode with Two Nodes, at 117.92 Hz
Figure 4.6: The Third Mode with Three Nodes, at 538.78 Hz

The results are compared with two authors, John and Li
Srinivasan [13]. The comparison is shown in Table 4.5.
[2]
, and Hariharan and
- 30 -
Table 4.5: Comparison of the Modal Results with Previous Authors

FEM
John
MODE
Hariharan
model
& Li
1
9.1018 13.44
2
117.92 125.67 164.228
3
538.78 474.26 665.963
4
993.3 842.45
Although differences can be seen, it is evidently due to the different
geometrical models used by different researchers. The modal results can change
easily, even with slight changes in the mass distribution of the model.
4.2.3 Location of Sweet Spot
As has been discussed in the Chapter 2, section 1, the location of the sweet
spot can be obtained as the location of minimum amplitude of vibration. If there is a
single mode of vibration this would be the nodes of the mode. But in general more
than one mode is excited at a time. In a cricket bat, it has been seen that the first two
modes of vibration can be expected.
An impact of ball on a cricket bat lasts for 0.001 s. Therefore, the
corresponding frequency is calculated as,

1

1
= 1000
0.001
Thus an impact of duration of 0.001 s can excite a natural frequency of at most

1000 Hz. All vibrations at a higher frequency would not be allowed to happen, since
by the time they return to the impact location, the ball has still not lost contact with
the bat. So the ball absorbs the vibration. However, the lower frequency vibrations
would have a larger time period, and hence by the time they would return to the
impact location, the ball would have lost contact, and the bat would be free to vibrate.
This is the reason why higher modes of vibration are not considered.
So it can be understood that the modes of vibration which are important in this
analysis are the modes which are lower than 1000 Hz, as calculated above. This
- 31 -
allows only the first two bending modes of vibration. Hence it can be calculated that
when the bat vibrates after an impact with the ball, it vibrates only on the first two
bending modes.
When these two modes are simultaneously activated, the region of the
minimum vibration can be seen to be the region between the closest located nodes of
the two vibrating modes. Figure 4.7 shows this region for the cricket bat model which
is being analysed. This is the region between the second node of the first mode and
the third node of the second mode.
Shoulder of Bat
Mode 1
32.4 cm
Mode 2
38.8 cm
Figure 4.7: Location of Sweet Spot

Thus the location of the sweet spot can be identified as between 32.4 cm to
38.8 cm from the shoulder of the bat.
4.3 IMPACT SIMULATION

4.3.1 Procedure for Simulation
The modelling of bat and ball are already done. The model was made in
Design Modeller. The meshing was also already done in ANSYS Mechanical. The
next step is to give the boundary conditions, initial conditions and solver settings.
The simulation is decided to be done for three conditions. The first condition
will be when the bat is considered stationary, and ball impacts on it with a velocity of
35 m/s. Throughout this work, this situation will be referred to as a 0-35 impact.
- 32 -
However, this is not a realistic situation. In a realistic situation, both bat and ball are
moving towards each other with certain velocity.
In this work, an analysis of Pull shot is attempted. A pull shot is a shot in
cricket where the batsman rotates his bat in an almost semi-circle, actually a spiral, to
impact the incoming ball. For a pull shot to be played the ball must be a short delivery
coming towards the batsman on the leg side, at an almost waist height or slightly
above. Such a delivery if left untouched by the batsman would mostly be declared a
wide. However, during situations which require aggressiveness, a properly executed
shot would pay off more than leaving it. The ball will be impacted a little after the bat
is in front of the batsman. This will direct the ball over the square leg, usually for a
boundary, or six. The ball may also be directed in between the square leg and fine leg,
with a slightly delay in executing the shot. The shot is very similar to a baseball shot,
which has been taken as the prototype for analysis.
It has already been discussed in the Chapter 2, Section 2, that a bat given a
linear velocity, as well as a bat given a rotational velocity does not produce difference
in the batted ball velocity. So a second simulation is done with bat given a linear
velocity of 17 m/s, and ball a linear velocity of 35 m/s. This situation is referred in
this work to as a 17-35 impact. In reality, a cricket bat will have velocities around this
value. Ball velocity will depend on the bowler, but usually medium pacers will bowl
around 35 to 37 m/s. A fast bowler may deliver bowls up to 39 to 42 m/s. So the
second situation, the 17-35 impact is a realistic situation. In order to verify the results
with a previous author, a third simulation, which is not very realistic is done. In this
simulation the bat is given velocity of 40 m/s and ball also 40 m/s. This is referred to
as a 40-40 impact.
It is to be noted, that as such no clear data is available on the bat velocity at
the time of impact in cricket. However, an analysis on the bat swing in a baseball
shot, done by Cross [16], the bat velocity is graphically shown to reach a maximum of
almost 17 m/s towards the end of the swing. Therefore this value has been taken for
analysis as a realistic value.
In each of the three situations which are to be simulated, there is a further subdivision done based on the impact location. In each case the ball is impacted on the
- 33 -
blade of the bat at varying distances from the shoulder of the bat. Throughout the
remaining work, the impact location is measured as distance from the shoulder of the
bat. The impact location is varied from 20 cm to 45 cm in steps of 5 cm. Thus impacts
are simulated at 20 cm, 25 cm, 30 cm, and so on till 45 cm from the shoulder of the
bat. Figure 4.8 shows the various impact locations considered for simulation purposes.
Origin
20 cm
45 cm
Figure 4.8: Impact Locations Considered for Simulation

As has already been discussed, a free-free simulation of bat has been
considered as a legitimate approach by many researchers, to simulate an impact
between ball and bat. This is mainly because a cricket bat is not held as firmly by the
batsman to consider a clamped boundary condition. The hands allow the bat to vibrate
though they do damp the vibrations much faster, and a free bat.
Initially the ball and the bat are kept at a small distance apart. This ensures that
no automatic contact is generated by the system. As the simulation progresses, the
ball will move towards the bat, and at a point of time a contact will be generated
between the two bodies. This contact needs to be modelled. Hence an auto-detection
of contact is switched on for a face/face contact. The contact detection algorithms
allowed are of two types, trajectory or proximity based. Proximity based algorithms
encapsulate the external region by contact detection zone. If a node of another body
enters into this zone, a penalty based force is applied to repel it. However an
additional constraint is applied to the analysis time step when this contact detection
algorithm is selected. The time step is constrained such that a node cannot travel
through a fraction of the contact detection zone size in one cycle.
- 34 -
Trajectory based contact detection, on the other hand, does not impose any
constraint on the analysis time step and therefore often provides the most efficient
solution. The trajectory of nodes and faces included in frictional or frictionless contact
are tracked during the computation cycle. If the trajectory of a node and a face
intersects during the cycle a contact event is detected.
Trajectory based contact detection gives two choices for the formulation
algorithm of the contact, decomposition response or penalty. The decomposition
response algorithm can give rise to large hourglass energies and result in energy
errors. A penalty based approach detects a contact and responds by applying a local
penalty force to push the node, which would have penetrated, back to the surface. In
process the linear and angular moment is always conserved. But the kinetic energy
may not be conserved. A penalty based algorithm is more suited for simulating the
contact between a bat and ball. A frictionless contact type is selected, to allow some
sliding between the ball and bat.
The ball is given an initial velocity of 35 m/s, and bat is considered stationary
for the 0-35 impact simulation. For other simulations also the initial conditions are
appropriately defined by defining the proper velocities for bat and ball.
An average nodal Tet-Pressure integration is selected as it does not exhibit
volume locking and allows large deformation. An exact hex integration is selected
over as it allows for warped elements. This is done to allow for the deformation in the
ball upon impact. A 1pt Gauss hex integration gives hourglassing errors on
encountering warped faces. Damping controls are set at default values, as is
recommended.
The impact of ball on bat lasts for 0.001 s. So the solution time is allowed to
run to 0.004 s. This is done in order to see the vibrational effects in the bat, and the
exit velocity of the ball.
The simulation is done for all impact locations in all three situations of velocities.
Tables 4.6 to 4.8 show the exit velocity of the ball and resulting maximum stresses in
the bat for each of the three situations for each impact location. Figure 4.9 to 4.14
show the line graph of the corresponding tables preceding them.
- 35 -
Table 4.6: Variation of BEV and Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact Location
Impact Location
Ball Exit Velocity
Maximum Stress
(0-35 impact)
(m)
(m/s)
(MPa)
0.2
10.36
66.9
0.25
13.71
65.2
0.3
15.62
48.2
0.35
16.16
25.8
0.4
13.53
47.8
0.45
4.81
68.15
Ball Exit Velocity

18
Velocity (m/s)
16
14
12
10
8
BEV
6
4
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)

Figure 4.9: BEV Graph for 0-35 Impact
Max Stress
80
Stress (MPa)
70
60
50
Max Stress
40
30
20
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Impact Location (m)

Figure 4.10: Stress Graph for 0-35 Impact
0.45
- 36 -
Table 4.6: Variation of Ball Exit Velocity and Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact
Location (17-35 Impact
Impact Location
Ball Exit Velocity
Maximum Stress
(m)
(m/s)
(MPa)
0.2
31.463
99.89
0.25
31.8855
81.95
0.3
33.251
58.006
0.35
33.1925
42.69
0.4
30.3225
58.24
0.45
23.5715
87.77
Ball Exit Velocity

34
Velocity (m/s)
32
30
28
26
24
BEV
22
20
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)
Max Stress
105
Velocity (m/s)
95
85
75
65
55
Max Stress
45
35
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Impact Location (m)
- 37 -
Table 4.6: Variation of Ball Exit Velocity and Maximum Stress on Bat with Impact
Location (40-40 Impact)
Impact Location
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Ball Exit Velocity

58.725
60.18
61.11
62.11
59.17
47.79
Maximum Stress
157.3
145.7
102.5
76
92.7
139.1
Velocity (m/s)
Ball Exit Velocity

65
63
61
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
BEV
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)

Max Stress
160
150
Stress (MPa)
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Max Stress
70
60
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Impact Location (m)

0.4
0.45
Figure 4.15: Impact of Ball with a Stationary Bat and Post-Impact Wave Propagation in the Bat
- 38 -
- 39 -
Figure 4.15 shows some of the frames of a simulation of 0-35 impact. It can be
seen from all the simulations that for sweet spots impacts, the exit velocity of the ball
is maximum and the stresses in the bat are minimum. From these graphs it can be
estimated that the sweet spot location is around 0.35 m from the shoulder of the bat.
This is very much in agreement with the range of 32.4 to 38.8 cm obtained using
modal analysis.
4.3.2 Verification of Impact Simulation
In order to put faith in the values obtained using FEA, an independent analysis
needs to be done in order to corroborate the results. Two methods of verification are
used. One is an independent analysis, and another is verification by referring to
previous authors.
Till now the mechanics of the impact of bat and ball are being considered
keeping the dynamic nature of the bodies into consideration. This is the actual
situation. The ball experiences a lot of compression at the time of impact, and also the
bat vibrates. There is another technique in mechanics which is called rigid body
analysis. Rigid body analysis considers the bodies to be rigid in nature. Thus no
consideration of vibrations or compressions in structure is made.
The validity of rigid body analysis has been checked by many researchers
previously. Cross
[19]
studied the model for a baseball bat. A rigid body model will
work best if the duration of the collision is greater than the vibration period of the
fundamental mode of the freely supported beam. This is because in such a situation by
the time the vibration returns to the location of impact, the impacter would still not
have left the contact with the beam. Hence, the energy of vibration is given back to
the impacter. Thus the beam beahves almost like a rigid body. However this is not
true for a cricket bat and ball, since the duration of impact is shorter than the time
period of two of the modes of vibrations. Hence the bat vibrates. Thus Cross explains
that the rigid body model should be followed by independent estimates of energy
stored in the vibrational modes. An experimentalist could measure the amplitudes of
the various modes after the collision is over, calculate the energy in the modes, and
then use the conservation equations to calculate the rebound speed of the ball.
However, it would be simpler to measure the rebound speed directly. In this sense, a
- 40 -
rigid body model of the collision is of limited use in determining the rebound speed of
the ball.
Cross suggested measuring the vibrational energy and then using it to work
out the conservation of energy. But another way of doing the same thing is by
estimating a proper coefficient of restitution and using that coefficient of restitution to
conserve energy.
Precisely the same procedure has been explored by David, et al
[5]
. A
procedure of conservation of linear and angular momenta, as well as the coefficient of

restitution is used to define the exit velocity of the ball after impacting the bat. A
detailed discussion on the derivation of the mathematical model can be seen in
Appendix II. The ball exit velocity as derived using the model is described by Eq 4.2.
)(
(Eq 4.2)
Where,
v1a
Velocity of ball after impact,
v1b
Velocity of ball before impact,
v2b
Velocity of bat before impact,
m1
Mass of ball,
m2
Mass of bat,
Impact location of ball from the Centre of mass of bat,
I0
Moment of Inertia about center of mass,
Coeffiecient of Restitution, and
2b
Angular Velocity of the bat before impact.
- 41 -
Out of these all constants for this analysis are known, except for Coefficient of
Restitution. This needs to be found, and requires a little research into previous
literature.
David, et al
[5]
, determined the value of coefficient of restitution using
experimentation. A bowling machine was used to launch a cricket ball on a stationary

cricket bat, and high speed video cameras were used to determine the inbound and
rebound velocities of ball and the recoil velocity of bat. The coeffient of restitution
was determined using its definition, as described by Eq 4.3.
(Eq 4.3)
The values of coefficient of restitution (COR) obtained were 0.511, 0.519 and
0.509 for three different bats. However the authors declared their procedure of
measurement of COR as erraneous. It was cited that the value of COR will vary along
the length of the bat. Hence the measured value of COR being at the center of mass of
the bat, would be lower to the value at the impact points.
However another indepenedent research in the course of an MS degree
by Singh
[20]
, estimated the COR of a cricket ball using experimentation. Singh
explained that the COR of a ball decreases with increased speeds of impact. This is
also studied by Chauvin and Carlson
[21]
for baseball and softballs. The thesis by
Singh yields a graph which shows the variation in COR for two different balls at
different speeds. The graph is reproduced just for representational purpose in this
work properly referenced to original author, as Figure 4.16. The present work
concerns itself with ball impacting the bat at velocities upto 35 m/s 40 m/s (i.e. 78.3
mph 89.5 mps). The value for COR assumed in this work is directly read from the
graph. Moreover, the variation of the COR with impact location is not considered for
simplicity, as the entire procedure is just a verification tool, not an actual analysis.
The value of COR taken in this work is 0.45.
- 42 -
Figure 4.16: Variation of COR with Speed for Two Different Balls [20]
Substituting the constants thus derived into Eq 4.2, the values of the exit
velocity of the cricket ball after impacting the bat, at various locations along the
length of the bat, are obtained. The values obtained using Rigid Body Model (RBM)
are graphically compared with the results obtained using FEA in Figures 4.17 to 4.19,
for 0-35, 17-35 and 40-40 impacts respectively. It can be seen from the graphs that the
comparison between the two analytical models is good. Thus the FEA results are
verified.
18
16
Velocity (m/s)
14
12
10
8
FEM
RBM
6
4
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)

Figure 4.17: Comparison of RBM and FEA results for 0-35 impact
- 43 -
34
Velocity (m/s)
32
30
28
26
FEM
RBM
24
22
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)

70
Velocity (m/s)
65
60
55
FEM
50
RBM
45
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Impact Location (m)

- 44 -
Once the FEA results are verified against Rigid Body Model, the next step is
verifying the results with the previous authors. Some of the authors have previously
by various methods estimated the ball exit velocity for an impact of ball on a cricket
bat.
David James, et al
[5]
, performed experiments to determine the rebound
velocity of ball upon impacting a stationary cricket bat. The ball was fired using a
bowling machine at a fairly constant speed, such that the impacting velocity would be
27.7 m/s. This is fairly lower than the velocity of 35 m/s considered for this work. Yet
the results are quite comparable. Hence a comparison is made to verify the 0-35
impacting situation. The Figure 4.20 shows the graph obtained by David, et al. The
spots indicate an experimental results, and the continuous line indicates the RBM
prediction. The range of rebound velocities are 7 m/s 12 m/s. This is quite close to
the range of 5 m/s 16 m/s, obtained using FEA in this work. The results obtained in
this work are higher, as expected, since the initial ball velocities are higher.
Figure 4.20: Rebound velocities obtained using experiments by David,et al [5]

Hariharan and Srinivasan
[13]
, used FEA to simulate a 40-40 impact. The
rebounding velocities obtained by them are in the range of 70m/s 80m/s. The
present work for a 40-40 impact simulation has given the results of rebounding
velocities in the range of 50 m/s 65 m/s. The results are different due to the
differences in the bat being considered.
- 45 -
4.4 SUMMARY
The chapter was aimed at modelling a cricket bat and simulating the impact of
cricket ball on the bat. The modelling was done using ANSYS Workbench. The
model was prepared, and relevant material properties for bat and ball were applied.
The model was calibrated with the experimental results. A free free modal analysis
was performed to obtain the natural frequencies of the bat. This was verified against
experimental modal analysis to calibrate the model. Also a verification was done by
comparing the results for a fixed free modal analysis against the results obtained by
previous authors. The modal analysis was also used to estimate the location of sweet
spot.
The impact of ball on the bat was simulated. The exit velocities of the ball
were plotted against the impact locations, for three different simulations, consisting of
three different initial conditions. The results were verified using Rigid Body Method.
Also a verification was done by comparing the results with the results obtained by
previous authors. The verifications could confirm the validity of the model.
CHAPTER 5
REACTION FORCES ON HAND
- 47 -
5.1 REACTION FORCES DUE TO BAT SWING

When a bat is swung by the batsman, the speed with which the bat is swung
determines the force that the bat exerts on the hand. Determination of this force can be
done by a simple mechanical analysis of a swing process. This work is already done
by Cross
[16]
. The work done by Cross is first explained in the section 5.1.1. This is
followed by a discussion of application of this research in the present analysis.

5.1.1 Work Done by Rod Cross [16]
The discussion in this section is completely based on a work previously done,
as is referenced in the title itself. A baseball bat was swung by a batter at an imaginary
ball. The batter was instructed to swing the bat as fast as possible in a horizontal
plane at waist hight, after releasing the bat from shoulder. A single video camera
operating at 25frames per second (fps), exposure time of 2 ms, was mounted at a 4 m
height above the head of the batter. The
bat was an 840 mm long Louisville
Slugger R161 wood bat, weighing 871 g.
The center of mass of the bat was located
560 mm from the knob end, the barrel
diameter was 66.7 mm, and its moment
of inertia about an axis through the center
of mass,Icm, was measured to be 0.039
0.001 kg m2.
The video was converted into
frames, and each frame was de-interlaced
Figure 5.1: Motion of A Bat
to obtain the two images. The images

were used to locate the position of the bat
in each frame. Figure 5.1 shows the resulting motion of bat generated by Cross. The
figure shows the positions of the bat generated at 20 ms intervals. The bat is shown as
a solid straight line. The locus of barrel end and knob end are shown in blue and red
respectively. The location of center of mass is shown as a solid dot marked CM. The
inner circle denotes the locus of the instantaneous center of curvature of the locus of
the center of mass. The radius is calculated as the distance from the instantaneous
- 48 -
center of curvature to the center of mass. At every instant the long axis of the bat
makes an angle, say , with the laboratory X axis. The angural velocity, , of the bat
with respect to the laboratory frame of reference would then be
. At every step
in the motion of the bat, it is possible to calculate / . Also by calculating the

distance covered by the center of mass, through every step of the bat swing, it is
possible to get the linear velocity of the center of mass, V. Thus using these
calculations, and V are plotted against time, t. This graph is shown in Figure 5.2.
The net force that the batter is applying on the bat can be resolved into two mutually
perpendicular forces, the centripetal force,
, and the tangential force,
. Through the data available, these both have been calculated and as shown
in Figure 5.3, plotted against time. The net force being applied by the batsman is the
resultant of these two perpendicular forces. The resultant force, F, and the angle, ,
between the resultant force and the axis of the bat is plotted in Figure 5.4.
To summarize, till now the total force being applied by the batsman on the bat
with both of his hands is obtained, along with its direction of action. It is desired to
know the force due to each of these hands. To find out this, the couple applied by the
two hands on the bat needs to be known.
The resultant force being generated by both the hands generates a torque
which causes the bat to rotate, or swing through its path. If the angle between the
radius vectore R, and longitudinal axis of the bat is , the resulting torque due to the
resultant force, F, can be expressed as the sum of torque due to centripetal force, A,
and torque due to tangential force, B. Since an axis through center of mass of the bat
is being considered,
=(
, and
= (
Here, d is the distance from the point of application of the resultant force to
the center of mass of the bat. Actually the force is being applied by two hands,
distributed over a length of almost 200 mm along the handle, but it is regarded as a
point force at 100 mm from the knob end. Thus d is calculated to be 0.46 m.
In addition to this torque, the hands apply a couple C. Hence by Newtons
Second law, as applied to rotating bodies, Eq 5.1 is obtained.
+
(Eq 5.1)
- 49 -
In Eq 5.1, A and B can be easily calculated, as described above. Also ICM is

know. From the graph of v/s t,
can be easily calculated. Hence the equation
is used to get the value of C, the couple being applied by the two hands. Figure 5.5
shows the values of A, B and C, thus calculated.
Figure 5.2: Plot of V and v/s Time
Figure 5.4: Plot of net force and

direction v/s Time
Figure 5.3: Plot of resolved

forces v/s Time
Figure 5.5: Plot of torques and

couple v/s Time
- 50 -
Now that the values of the couple produced by the hand is known, as well as
the net forced produced by both hands is known, it is possible to find out the forces
exterted by each arm. This is done by a simple procedure described below.
Consider time, t = 340 ms. From the graphs shown in the above figures, it can
be seen that net force of 300 N is acting at = -20 , with respect to the long axis of the
bat. The couple acting at this instant can be seen to be -45 Nm. Considering the arms
to be separated by a distance of 10 cm, or 0.1 m, the couple can be represented as two
equal and opposite forces of 450 N, spaced 0.1 m apart, acting perpendicular to the
axis of the bat, such that they apply a negative couple. The transverse force on the bat
is 300 sin 20 = 102 N. Thus the transverse force applied by left hand is 399 N
(= 450 102 2) and that by right hand is 501 N( = 450 + 102 2). The left hand
pushes while the right hand pulls, to generate a negative couple. In addition both
hands exert a longitudinal pulling force of 300 cos 20 = 282 N.
In a similar fashion, the forces generated by the hand on the bat can be
obtained at every instant.
5.1.2 Swing Force Calculations for a Cricket Bat
The previous section described, in breif, the procedure followed to get the
swing forces involved in swinging a baseball bat. For the present work, it is required
to obtain similar calculations for a cricket bat. Since such a detailed study is already
done, and as described earlier the pull shot is very similar to a baseball shot, doing the
same exercise all over again would be much like re-inventing a wheel, an unnecessary
undertaking.
Hence it is decided to consider the same values as obtained by Cross for the
present situation of the cricket bat swing. However, minute changes would be
required since the parameters defining a cricket bat would be quite different as that for
a baseball bat. Thus, all that is required is minor adjustments in the calculations. The
video frames, the graphs and overall procedure would much remain the same, except
for those minor adjustments.
- 51 -
To decide what adjustments need to be made, a comparison is done between

the cricket bat under study and the baseball bat being used by Cross. Table 5.1 shows
a comparison of the major parameters which play a role in the calculations involved.
Table 5.1: A Comparison of Important Parameters of the Cricket and Baseball Bats
Unit
Crosss Baseball bat
Cricket Bat
Mass
(kg)
0.871
1.347
Length
(mm)
840
850
Location of CM
(in mm, from knob)
560
541
0.039
0.044
Moment of Inertia
(in kgm2, about

CM)
From the Table 5.1, it can be clearly seen that most of the parameters are same
for both cricket as well as baseball bat. The only difference being that the mass of the
cricket bat is a little more than 1.5 (actually 1.54) times that of the baseball bat. This
implies that wherever in the calculations mass comes into picture, it needs to be
multiplied by a factor of 1.5. This holds true for a situation when bat is swung at 17
m/s, i.e. at the same speed at which a baseball is swung.
If the unrealistic case of 40 m/s as the swing speed of the cricket bat is
considered, as suggested by the 40 40 impact simulation, the velocity needs to be
taken care of apart from the mass.
An interesting note here would be, that throughout all calculations velocity
appears as V2, and in some situation as dV. The term dV may be left undisturbed, as
whatever be the speed, the pattern of the swing remains same, thus leaving dV same.
But all other forces containing the V2 term will be very largely affected. This would
increase the swing forces to a value of the order of 4 KN. This in addition to the the
impact reaction forces would practically make the bat impossible to hold, creating
stresses in the hand beyond the fracture limits. Hence it can be clearly seen that a 40 -
- 52 -
40 case is an unrealistic case. Despite understanding this, it is included into

consideration till the end of this chapter, just to estimate how unrealistic it is.
Cross work can help to estimate the reaction forces in the hand throughout the
swing period of the bat. But that is not the point of interest in this work. Here the
concern is limited to the time just during the impact of the ball on the bat. And
according to Cross estimate, that would happen during the time step of t = 400 ms.
Thus the calculations for the swing forces are done only at the time step of 400 ms.
This itself is very long as compared to the impact time of 1 ms. As seen in the next
chapter, the impact can cause reaction forces of the duration of 5 10 ms. Thus the
time period of consideration is only 400 ms to 410 ms after the swing of the bat has
started. Hence, it is a fair assumption to take the swing forces as constant during this
period of 10 ms. That is why there is not consideration given to the variation of swing
forces during the period taken into consideration.
At 400 ms, Cross value of centripetal force, FC is 311 N, as read from graph
in Figure 5.3. For the consideration of a cricket bat, this needs to be multiplied by a
factor of 1.5, to account for the increased mass of the cricket bat. A similar treatment
is done for the tangential force, FT.
= 311 1.5 = 466.5

,
= 3 1.5 = 4.5 .
It can be seen that at this stage of the swing, centripetal force plays a major
role and tangential force is negligible when compared to it. The net force can also be
obtained by similarly multiplying the graph read value by the factor 1.5. Since both
the component forces have been multiplied by same factor, will remain same.

= 465
,
= 10
Similarly, the torque values can also be calculated and the new value of the
couple, C is obtained as,
= 49
- 53 -
Thus, using the procedure described in the previous section, it is possible to

obtain the forces exerted by each hand. The couple is described by two forces 490 N
each separated by 0.1 m distance. Thus force on the left hand is,
= 490
465 sin 10
= 449.62
2
= 490 +
465 cos 10
= 530.37
2
The total horizontal force would be 457.94 N. It can be seen at 400 ms during
the swing, the right hand is almost at right angles to the bat, and the left hand is
almost along the bat. Thus it can be assumed that most of the horizontal force will be
borne by the left hand. Thus the total left hand force becomes 641.77 N and right
530.37 N.
A similar analysis for 40 40 impact simulation can be done.
= 3874.05
= 4.5
= 3874.05
0
= 65.87
= 3929.27
= 660.97
As expected the reaction forces for a 40 m/s swing of the bat are too high.
- 54 -
5.2 FORCES DUE TO IMPACT

5.2.1 Model Variations
In the previous chapter already an attempt was made to simulate the collision
of ball and bat. The simulation was used to find out the exit velocity of the ball after
impact on the bat. Many initial conditions were considered for bat and ball. However,
the simulations themsvelves were unable to estimate the reaction forces developed on
the hands.
The reaction forces can be found out on a surface. For this reason it is required
to create a surface which represents the hand of the batsman. This surface can be kept
in a bonded contact with the handle, to represent a hand held bat.
The modelling changes which are required are shown in Figure 5.6. The figure
shows two thin clamps which have been modelled at the handle of the bat. The clamps
are placed in the same position a pair of hands would be holding a bat. To represent a
bonded contact between the clamps and the bat handle, both the all the bodies have
been modelled as a single part. This makes sure that there is no separation between
the bat and the clamp, as if they were a single body, but made of different material.
Figure 5.6: Modelling Variation to Find the Reaction Forces.

The initial conditions that have been described in the previous chapter are
simulated again. However, this time 0 35 impact is not simulated because the
concern is to find out the impact forces for a pull shot. No constraint is placed on the
bodies. The reaction forces occuring at the inner surface of the clamps are recorded
directly from the simulation. It is expected that the impact forces will last for a much
longer time than the impact of the ball. Hence, although the ball impact is over within
the first 1.2 ms, the simulation is done for a period of 5 ms. This allows to capture the
complete details of the forces involved. The forces are measured separately for the left
and the right hand.
- 55 -
The impact forces are obtained using the FEA simulation over a period of 5
ms, in time steps of 0.25 ms. These forces are then vectorially added to the forces
obtained using the swing analysis in the previous section. Thus the total forces acting
on both the left as well as the right hands are obtained.
This simulation is carried out for 17 35 impact situation and 40 40 impact
situation. In each situation, as previously, 6 impact locations are considered, at 0.2 m,
0.25 m, and so on till 0.45 m.
5.2.2 Discussion of Results for Forces on Hand

The results obtained using the above discussed simulations has been discussed
in this section. The first discussion is directed towards 17 35 impact situation.
The Table 5.2 shows the calculations done to find out the total reaction forces
obtained on the left and right hands for a 17 35 impact analysis for a 0.2 impact
location of the ball on the bat. The swing forces are as obtained using the previously
discussed analysis. The impact forces are obtained using FEA analysis. Following the
Table 5.2 is a graph represented in Figure 5.7, which shows the same data in a
graphical form. The net forces on the left and right hand are shown. It can be clearly
seen, as is expected that the right hand shares a higher load than the left hand. This is
mainly due to its location, behind the bat, and hence supporting it against the force of
the bat.
Table 5.3 onwards till Table 5.7, the same results are displayed as in Table
5.2. The only difference is the impact location, as is described by the captions of the
tables. Following each table is a graph displaying the same results, in a clear format.
Figure 5.13 shows a combination of all the results for a right hand, showing the time
variations of loads on the right hand for impacts at different locations. The same result
for the left hand is shown in Figure 5.14 graphically. In order to compare the extent of
loads at different locations, a graph is shown in Figure 5.15 which shows the
maximum reaction forces borne by both left as well as right hands for different impact
locations.
- 56 Table 5.2: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.2m From Shoulder

Time
Impact
Force
0
1662.3
723.22
1196
2350.3
2231.2
1878.2
1499.2
3082.4
3562.6
1439.5
2092.8
1643.9
1538
1416.5
1650.8
3427.7
2349.7
950.76
2768.3
3423.8
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 2132.67
470.37 1193.59
470.37 1666.37
470.37 2820.67
470.37 2701.57
470.37 2348.57
470.37 1969.57
470.37 3552.77
470.37 4032.97
470.37 1909.87
470.37 2563.17
470.37 2114.27
470.37 2008.37
470.37 1886.87
470.37 2121.17
470.37 3898.07
470.37 2820.07
470.37 1421.13
470.37 3238.67
470.37 3894.17
Impact
Force
0
1511.5
364.26
312.7
1460.2
768.74
1145.3
563.5
2612.8
1444.9
940.94
1305.7
1257.3
629.12
1168.9
1214.3
1787.6
1547.7
615.23
2086.5
564.18
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1901.13
753.89
702.33
1849.83
1158.37
1534.93
953.13
3002.43
1834.53
1330.57
1695.33
1646.93
1018.75
1558.53
1603.93
2177.23
1937.33
1004.86
2476.13
953.81
4500
4000
total Right
3500
total left
Force (N)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
Figure 5.7: Graphical Results, 17 35 Impact at 0.2 m From Shoulder
Total
Left
601.26
1955.50
882.07
838.43
1905.67
1245.60
1601.78
1057.43
3037.15
1890.82
1407.16
1756.09
1709.41
1116.94
1624.41
1668.02
2224.86
1990.71
1104.28
2518.12
1058.04

Time
Impact
Force
0
1458.3
637.69
704.24
1777.2
2348.7
2129.8
818.6
2437.3
2265.4
869.96
1469
1375.2
2133.3
866.15
2079.4
3273.8
1762
1190.8
1752.2
1993.9
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 1928.67
470.37 1108.06
470.37 1174.61
470.37 2247.57
470.37 2819.07
470.37 2600.17
470.37 1288.97
470.37 2907.67
470.37 2735.77
470.37 1340.33
470.37 1939.37
470.37 1845.57
470.37 2603.67
470.37 1336.52
470.37 2549.77
470.37 3744.17
470.37 2232.37
470.37 1661.17
470.37 2222.57
470.37 2464.27
Impact
Force
0
1113.3
291.14
189.04
798.72
1261.6
1532.7
674.19
1802
1037.7
703.65
850.44
684.38
1110.2
613.48
1258.6
1654.7
1036.9
740.12
820.28
895.48
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1502.93
680.77
578.67
1188.35
1651.23
1922.33
1063.82
2191.63
1427.33
1093.28
1240.07
1074.01
1499.83
1003.11
1648.23
2044.33
1426.53
1129.75
1209.91
1285.11
4000
3500
3000
total right
total left
Force (N)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
Total
Left
601.26
1571.14
820.46
737.94
1273.53
1713.55
1976.12
1158.19
2238.96
1498.99
1185.31
1321.92
1167.56
1568.18
1102.69
1710.66
2094.99
1498.23
1219.03
1293.67
1364.26

Time
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Impact
Force
0
1407
577.52
472.81
1726.3
2411
2171.5
643.14
1736
1024.4
659.62
888.29
1581
2301.1
942.23
1813.2
2881.8
1543.4
1041.4
1170
1097.7
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 1877.37
470.37 1047.89
470.37 943.18
470.37 2196.67
470.37 2881.37
470.37 2641.87
470.37 1113.51
470.37 2206.37
470.37 1494.77
470.37 1129.99
470.37 1358.66
470.37 2051.37
470.37 2771.47
470.37 1412.6
470.37 2283.57
470.37 3352.17
470.37 2013.77
470.37 1511.77
470.37 1640.37
470.37 1568.07
Impact
Force
0
1093.6
309.93
141.72
250.62
1515.3
1622.9
664.44
1138.6
772.6
580.63
581.92
759.78
1456.8
571.3
1054.6
1481.4
774.34
713.66
419.74
732.85
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1483.23
699.56
531.35
640.25
1904.93
2012.53
1054.07
1528.23
1162.23
970.26
971.55
1149.41
1846.43
960.93
1444.23
1871.03
1163.97
1103.29
809.37
1122.48
4000
3500
total Right
total left
Force (N)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
Total
Left
601.26
1552.31
836.11
701.45
787.16
1959.20
2063.97
1149.24
1595.36
1249.19
1072.89
1074.06
1237.27
1902.37
1064.46
1515.09
1926.25
1250.81
1194.55
929.94
1212.30
- 59 Table 5.5: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.35 m From Shoulder
Time
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Impact
Force
0
1491.8
669.25
453.86
1650.7
2106.6
2115.8
1242.3
774.29
593.71
885.67
730.05
1445.5
1833.2
1342.6
950.99
2271.2
1471.3
1470.8
555.29
401.89
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 1962.17
470.37 1139.62
470.37 924.23
470.37 2121.07
470.37 2576.97
470.37 2586.17
470.37 1712.67
470.37 1244.66
470.37 1064.08
470.37 1356.04
470.37 1200.42
470.37 1915.87
470.37 2303.57
470.37 1812.97
470.37 1421.36
470.37 2741.57
470.37 1941.67
470.37 1941.17
470.37 1025.66
470.37 872.26
Impact
Force
0
1128.7
294.4
247.87
344.75
1238.9
1507.4
475.86
517.46
587.51
628.24
620.32
712.6
1130.7
769.74
584.03
1012
847.31
354.03
335.54
522.75
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1518.33
684.03
637.50
734.38
1628.53
1897.03
865.49
907.09
977.14
1017.87
1009.95
1102.23
1520.33
1159.37
973.66
1401.63
1236.94
743.66
725.17
912.38
Total
Left
601.26
1585.88
823.16
784.92
865.46
1691.69
1951.52
979.17
1016.13
1079.12
1116.14
1108.92
1193.57
1587.80
1246.53
1075.97
1474.54
1318.98
873.34
857.65
1020.85
3000
total Right
2500
total left
Force (N)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
- 60 -
Table 5.6: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.4 m From Shoulder

Time
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Impact
Force
0
1458.3
652.58
544.99
1232.1
1243.2
2613.7
2473.9
2170.3
1235.7
742.68
924.36
961.31
1078.4
1374.8
1132.8
1217.3
1887.6
2060.3
1401.9
1670.9
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 1928.67
470.37 1122.95
470.37 1015.36
470.37 1702.47
470.37 1713.57
470.37 3084.07
470.37 2944.27
470.37 2640.67
470.37 1706.07
470.37 1213.05
470.37 1394.73
470.37 1431.68
470.37 1548.77
470.37 1845.17
470.37 1603.17
470.37 1687.67
470.37 2357.97
470.37 2530.67
470.37 1872.27
470.37 2141.27
Impact
Force
0
1113.3
291.27
342.07
372.51
495.33
996.79
1371.2
519.26
634.47
669.08
585.48
641.3
534.03
795.76
695.86
422.14
1176.8
534.88
310.23
507.18
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1502.93
680.90
731.70
762.14
884.96
1386.42
1760.83
908.89
1024.10
1058.71
975.11
1030.93
923.66
1185.39
1085.49
811.77
1566.43
924.51
699.86
896.81
Total
Left
601.26
1571.14
820.56
863.18
889.13
996.42
1460.09
1819.40
1017.73
1121.82
1153.50
1077.28
1128.06
1030.94
1270.77
1178.13
932.02
1631.99
1031.71
836.36
1006.96
3500
3000
total Right
total left
Force (N)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
- 61 -
Table 5.7: Reaction Forces, 17 35 Impact at 0.45 m From Shoulder

Time
Impact
Force
0
1458.3
663.85
629.25
130.61
1222.6
3073.9
4052.4
4209.9
1353.5
1366.7
1513.9
516.1
1253
1819.4
3044
701.24
2553.8
2620.4
2732.5
2231.3
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
Right Hand
Swing
Total
Force
Right
470.37 470.37
470.37 1928.67
470.37 1134.22
470.37 1099.62
470.37 600.98
470.37 1692.97
470.37 3544.27
470.37 4522.77
470.37 4680.27
470.37 1823.87
470.37 1837.07
470.37 1984.27
470.37 986.47
470.37 1723.37
470.37 2289.77
470.37 3514.37
470.37 1171.61
470.37 3024.17
470.37 3090.77
470.37 3202.87
470.37 2701.67
Impact
Force
0
1113.3
291.55
388.48
166.64
1157.4
1244
2899.6
1013.9
660.48
707.77
1160.5
672.67
1069.4
1346.3
1989.8
387.35
1814.9
1225.2
254.19
1164.8
Swing
Vertical
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
389.63
Left Hand
Swing
Horizontal
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
457.94
Total
Vertical
389.63
1502.93
681.18
778.11
556.27
1547.03
1633.63
3289.23
1403.53
1050.11
1097.40
1550.13
1062.30
1459.03
1735.93
2379.43
776.98
2204.53
1614.83
643.82
1554.43
Total
Left
601.26
1571.14
820.80
902.86
720.51
1613.38
1696.60
3320.95
1476.34
1145.61
1189.11
1616.35
1156.80
1529.20
1795.31
2423.09
901.89
2251.59
1678.50
790.07
1620.48
5000
4500
4000
total Right
total left
3500
Force (N)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Time (s)
Figure 5.13: Graph of Impact Forces on the Right Hand for All Impact Locations, 17 35 Analysis
- 62 -
Figure 5.14: Graph of Impact Forces on the Left Hand for All Impact Locations, 17 35 Analysis
- 63 -
- 64 -
5000
4500
force , N
4000
3500
3000
2500
right
2000
left
1500
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
impact location, m (from shoulder)
0.4
0.45
Figure 5.15: Plot of Maximum Forces Experienced on Left and Right Hands v/s
Impact Location
From Figure 5.15, it is very clear that the impact forces on both the hands for a
sweet spot impact is lower when compared for a non sweet spot impact. This proves
the claim that a sweet spot impact produces a lower jerk on the batsmans hand as
compared to other impacts.
Also from the Figure 5.15, a conclusion can be drawn on the location of the
sweet spot. It can be said to be a region between 0.35 m to 0.4 m from the shoulder of
the bat, as for both the right as well as the left hands, the force is minimum in that
range of impact locations. Previous to this, using ball exit velocity, the sweet spot was
determined to be a region around 0.35 m from the shoulder of the bat. Also the
location of sweet spot using modal analyis was obtained between 0.324 m to 0.388 m
from the bat. Thus it can be seen that there is an excellent correlation between these
three definitions of the sweet spot.
A similar analysis as above has also been done for a 40 40 analysis. Figures
5.16 and 5.17 show the variation of impact forces with respect to time on the right
and left hands respectively for different impact locations for a 40 40 analysis. Also
Figure 5.18 shows the variation of maximum forces on left and right hands with
respect to impact location for a 40 40 analysis.
Figure 5.16: Graph of Impact Forces on Rightt Hand for All Impact Locations, 40 40 Analysis
- 65 -
Figure 5.17: Graph of Impact Forces on Leftt Hand for All Impact Locations, 40 40 Analysis
- 66 -
- 67 -
9500
right
8500
left
Force (N)
7500
6500
5500
4500
3500
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Impact Location (m)
0.4
0.45
Figure 5.18: Plot of Maximum Forces Experienced on Left and Right Hands v/s
Impact Location (for 40 40 analysis)
CHAPTER 6
STRESSES INDUCED IN HAND
- 69 -
6.1 EXPECTED VALUE OF STRESSES

Till now the forces that are experienced by the hands of the batsman are
measured. The next analysis to be done is to measure the stresses that these forces
result in the hand.
A prior analysis is first carried out to estimate the forces that can be expected.
This is done using a simple analysis of a beam as shown in Figure 6.1.
3 KN
50 mm
275 mm
20mm
Figure 6.1: Beam Representation of the Forearm to Estimate the Stresses

The beam shown in the figure represents the forearm of the batsman. It is
assumed that the beam is fixed at the end, using cantilever boundary conditions. The
dimensions given to the beam are similar to a pair of forearm bones. The load applied
is static. The value chosen for the load is 3 KN, approximately the mean load that is
being applied on the hands. The beam is assumed to behave in pure bending. The
bending stresses developed in the hands can be calculated through the following
procedure.

, =
20 50
=
= 8333.33
6
6

3000 275
8333.33
= 99
However, this analysis is only indicative of the actual values that may be
expected. An actual analysis of the structure of the hand should give a much lesser
value of stresses than this, because arm will actually never be arrested at the elbow,
but will be allowed some displacement. Moreover this is a static analysis, in the actual
- 70 -
case, the force will not be constant, but will be varying about this value, most of the
time being well below it. And most importantly there is no single bone connecting the
wrist to elbow, there are two of them and they will both share the load.
6.2 MODELLING OF THE HAND

As is already discussed in the chapter on literature review, the human hand is a
very complex structure. In order to model the hand, certain assumptions and
simplifications are made.
From the previous chapter, a series of forces acting on the hand are obtained
for each of the two hands, for different impact locations for two different impact
velocities of the bat and ball. These forces cannot be assumed to be acting at a
particular point on the hand. So it is safer to assume that these forces are acting as
pressure on the whole surface of the palm. Hence for this reason the actual structure
of the palm is neglected. The palm actually consists of a series of five bones called
metacarpals. These five bones originate in the wrist and spread throughout the palm
leading to the bones of the fingers called digits. The whole skeletal structure is then
covered by muscles, all throughout, and by ligaments at the joints. Since the concern
here is not about the stresses through each of the palm bones, the entire palm is
modelled as a flat, thick surface. The force can be applied in the form of pressure over
the entire surface of the palm.
The wrist consists of a set of eight bones called carpals, which are covered by
ligaments to give the required motion at the wrist location. The wrist is modelled just
with the ligaments.
The forearm consists of two bones called radius and ulna. The elbow joint is
also modelled as a pair of ligaments, one on the top and another on the bottom. The
elbow ligaments lead to the the bone which connects the elbow to the shoulder. This
is called the humerus. The humerus is surrounded by muscles, which help in flexing
and moving the forearms. However for the purpose of modelling and simulation, these
muscles have been ignored, studying the effects only of the bone.
- 71 -
The final model generated through these assumptions is displayed in figure

6.2.
HUMERUS
ELBOW RADIUS
ULNA
WRIST
LIGAMENTS
PALM BONES,
CARPALS AND
METACARPALS
Figure 6.2: The Model of Hand

The next step in the procedure for modelling is assigning material properties.
As is discussed in the chapter on literature survey for simplification the actual
material properties of the ligaments and bones are overlooked and both are taken as
isotropic materials. Table 6.1 lists out the material properties used for bones and
ligaments.
Table 6: Material properties for bone and ligament (ACL)
Bone
3
[22]
Density
(kg/m )
1900
Young's Modulus
Poisson's Ratio
Yield strength (tensile, long.)
Fracture strength (tensile, long.)
(GPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
20[23]
0.3
120[17]
140[17]
Ligament (ACL)
1027[22]
0.1[24]
0.3[25]
38[17]
Since the material properties for the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) are
most widely available, as compared to the ligaments of elbow or wrist, they are used
here.
6.3 SIMULATION AND RESULTS

The bones and the ligaments need to be assigned their material properties,
which are different from one another. For this reason, while modelling, the bones and
ligaments were modelled as separate bodies, but forming a same part. This allows the
freedom of not giving any contact properties for the interfacing surfaces. If this would
not have been done, the contact algorithms would have made the solver busy for quite
- 72 -
a longer time. This procedure makes sure that the contact between the different
bodies, of the same part, does not experience relative motions with respect to each
other. It is as good as a fixed or bonded contact. At the time of meshing, the algorithm
used for meshing is Patch Independent Tetrahedrons.
Patch independent Meshing is a meshing technique in which the faces and
their boundaries (edges and vertices) [patches] are not necessarily respected unless
there is a load, boundary condition, or other object scoped to the faces or edges or
vertices (topology). For solid bodies, patch independent meshing option is available
for tetrahedral elements. The Patch Independent mesh method for tetrahedrons is
based on spatial subdivision algorithm. This algorithm ensures refinement of the mesh
where necessary, but maintains larger elements where possible, allowing for faster
computation. And more relevantly, the patch independent meshing provides for an
option called Match Mesh Where Possible. If this option is set to yes, the algorithms
automatically make sure that there are common nodes, and no independent nodes
between the contacting surfaces of two different bodies, within the same part. Hence
practically a contact is established which will not slip, as is required in the hand.
Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show the match mesh feature at the contacts of the bones and
ligaments. It can be seen that there are common nodes.
Figure 6.3: Patch Independent Meshing at the Wrist
- 73 -
Figure 6.5: Patch Independent Meshing at the Elbow
The next step is application of loads on the palm. The loads, as discussed
before are applied in the form of pressure on the hand surface, rather than point
forces. This is more realistic since the forces acting on the hand from the bat do not
act on a particular point but on the whole hand. Hence before the loads are applied,
based on the results obtained using the previous analysis, the forces need to be
converted into pressures.
As is discussed previously, the 40 40 analysis will not be considered for this
simulations since, it has been seen to be unrealistic. In order to check for sweet spot
impacts, three simulations of the 17 35 analysis are considered. These are impacts at
at locations of 0.3 m, 0.35 m and 0.4 m.
The pressures are calculated over a time period of 5 ms. However, the
simulation needs to be run for a higher period of 10 ms. Hence pressures after 5 ms
are ramped down such that at 7 ms they approach 0 Pa.
The Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 show the pressures upto 5 ms for impact locations
of 0.3 m, 0.35 m and 0.4 m for the simulation of 17 35 impact. The pressure is
calculated by diving the force by the area of palm, i.e. 0.144 m2. Using these
conditions, the simulation is run.
- 74 -
Table 6.2: Pressures for 0.3 m Impact location, 17 35 case.

Time
Force
Pressure
(s)
(N)
(MPa)
0
470.37
0.03266
1
2881.37 0.20010
2
2206.37 0.15322
3
2051.37 0.14246
4
3352.17 0.23279
5
1568.07 0.10889
Time
Force Pressure
(s)
(N)
(MPa)
0
470.37 0.03266
1
2576.97 0.17896
2
1244.66 0.08643
3
2303.57 0.15997
4
2741.57 0.19039
5
872.26 0.06057
Time
Force Pressure
(s)
(N)
(MPa)
0
470.37 0.03266
1
1713.57 0.11900
2
2944.27 0.20446
3
1431.68 0.09942
4
1687.67 0.11720
5
2141.27 0.14870
The Figures 6.6 to 6.9 show the stress propogation in the hands of the batsman
over a period of time. It can also be seen from the figure that initially the stress is
maximum near the wrist, and then moves towards the elbow. Finally the maximum
stress is obtained at the elbow. After a time of approximately 9.5 ms the stress starts
reducing in the hand.
- 75 -
Max stress, 7.22 MPa
Figure 6.6: Stress Distribution at Time t = 2 ms
- 76 -
Figure 6.9: Stress Distribution at Time t = 9.5 ms

It is clear that the deflections being shown by the simulations are excessive,
and this is primarily because the material chosen for the bones and ligaments is
isotropic. A viscoelastic material for the ligaments would have reduced the
deflections. However the stresses values can be seen to be below the yield strength.
Figures 6.10 and 6.11 show the maximum stresses occuring in the ligaments of
wrist and elbow respectively.
Figure 6.10: Maximum Stress in Wrist Ligaments, at Time t = 6.5 ms
- 77 -
Figure 6.11: Maximum Stress in Elbow Ligaments, at Time t = 9.5 ms

Figure 6.12 shows the normal stresses occuring in the forearm bones. It can be
clearly seen from the values that the bones are undergoing a bending stress. It can be
seen that the top portion of the bones are undergoing elongation, while the lower
portion is undergoing compression.
Figure 6.12: Normal Bending Stresses for the Forearm Bones.

Further another observation made is that the maximum stress being
experienced by the batsman as predicted is a little on a higher side. As shown in
Figure 6.13, the stress is being obtained as a highly concentrated stress. Immediately
around the stress concentration area, it can be seen that the stresses are quite lower
- 78 -
than the highest value. This is due to a modelling error which was overlooked at the
time of simulation. The bones were obtained by extruding their cross sections. Hence
the edges at the ends are sharp. It would have been more realistic if the edges would
have been blunted using modelling features like fixed radius blend. This would not
only have looked realistic, but would also have removed any unexpected areas of high
stress concentration, as has been obtained now. The stress concentration area can be
seen to be the edge of the bone at the elbow end. In the figure the edge of the bone is
highlighted for clarity with a thick black line.
Figure 6.13: Region of Stress concentration

The results obtained for all the simulations run are tabulated in Table 6.14. The table
lists out the maximum stress that occurs in the structure of arm over the period of the
simulation, from the point of start of impact, for three different impact locations. The
time listed in the first column is the time after the impact of ball on the bat. The table
6.15 lists out the maximum stresses, their locations, and maximum stresses in the
ligaments and wrists over the entire period of simulation for three different impact
locations.
- 79 -
Table 6.14: The maximum stresses developed in the hand varying with time after
impact for various impact locations.
Stress in MPa
0.3 m Impact
0.35 m Impact
0.4 m Impact
2 ms
7.2268
8.2843
7.33
4 ms
20.469
19.009
16.67
6 ms
41.116
31.727
31.12
10 ms
83.415
58.449
57.585
Table 8: Comparison of the stresses in various parts of hand for three different
impacts.
0.3 m
0.35 m
0.4 m
unit
Impact
Impact
Impact
Overall Max Stress
MPa
83.415
58.449
57.585
Location of Max Stress
Elbow end of Radius
Max Elbow ligament stress
MPa
24.727
16.997
16.598
Max Wrist Ligament Stress
MPa
8.55
5.94
5.92
It can be clearly seen that the stresses are again minimum when the impacting
region lies between 0.35 to 0.4 m from the shoulder of the bat.
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
- 81 -
This chapter summarises the work which has been done throughout, and why
it has been done in that manner. The chapter will give an overview of the complete
work starting from the motivations to the results obtained.
A study was aimed to be performed on the cricket bats. The main motivation
for the study was to analyse the stresses that are developed in a batsmans hand while
playing a cricket shot. The shot which requires the most effort is a pull shot, and
hence the study was targeted towards a pull shot.
In order to find out the stresses, an FEA approach was considered. Modelling
and analysis softwares can easily give an accurate idea of the stresses in any structure
which is modelled appropriately. To obtain the stresses in the hand it requires to have
a model of the hand, as well as the forces acting on the hand.
Again the FEA approach was used, to obtain the forces on the hand of the
batsman and an impact of the ball on the bat was simulated. This again cannot be the
first step in itself. The first step would always be to model the cricket bat, and check
if the model gives proper results. This is where the whole research started.
An actual cricket bat was taken, and its model was build by obtaining the
coordinates of the bat. Using these coordinates, a model of the bat was created. Before
this model can be used for any simulation purposes, it was calibrated using physical
parameters like mass, moment of inertia, location of center of mass and natural
frequencies. The experimental value of mass was found to be 1.36 kg, while the FEA
model gave the mass as 1.347 kg. Similarly the location of center of mass
experimentally and using FEA were 23 cm and 24.1 cm respectively. The moment of
inertia experimentally and using FEA were found to be 0.0526 kgm2 and 0.044 kgm2
respectively. Also the natural frequencies of vibration for a free free boundary
condition was found to be 223Hz using experiments and 218.45 Hz using FEA. Thus
the correlation found between the model and the actual bat was good, and hence the
model was used for further simulations.
A cricket bat is known to have a region where, the batsmen describe, if the
ball hits, it goes the farthest, and most easily. This location is called as the sweet spot,
- 82 -
and it is found to lie towards the lower end of the blade of the bat, though not at the
bottom.
A diversion is taken from the procedure which was outlined. A study was also
conducted on the sweet spot location. Three physically defined interpretations of the
sweet spot were obtained. The study was targeted to find a correlation between them.
The modal analysis was done, and sweet spot was found to be located between 32.4
cm to 38.8 cm from the shoulder of the bat. After this an impact simulation of the ball
on the bat, for different impact velocities, and different impact locations was done.
Three impact situations were considered, 0 35 impact, 17 35 impact, 40 40
impact. For each situation different impact locations varying from 20 cm to 45 cm
with steps of 5 cm is considered. For the 0 35 simulation, the velocities were found
to vary from 4.8 m/s to 16.16 m/s, with the maximum at 35 cm impact. Similarly for
17 35 impact the range of exit velocities was 23.5 m/s to 33.25 m/s with maximum
at 30 cm. And for 40 40 simulations the range was from 47.8 m/s to 62.1 m/s with
maximum at 35 cm. Hence, again it was revealed that the maximum exit velocity of
the ball after impacting the bat is obtained when the ball hits approximately 35 cm to
40 cm from the shoulder of the bat, which is very close to the sweet spot obtained
using modal analysis.
Further, the impact simulations were used to find out how much forces the bat
transfers to each of the hands. A time variation of the impact forces on the right and
the left hand is obtained for all impact locations of 17 35 and 40 40 analysis. For a
17 35 impact simulation, a 0.2 m impact gives forces upto 3.5 KN of right hand and
2.1 KN on the left hand. A 0.25 m impact gives forces upto 3.3 KN on right and 1.66
KN on the left. For 0.3 m impact the forces are below 2.8 KN for right hand and 1.6
KN for left hand. For 0.35 m impact they are below 1.8 KN for right and 1.2 KN for
left. Similarly for 0.4 m impact they are 2.6 KN and 1.3 KN for right and left hands,
and for 0.45 m impact they are 4.21 KN and 2.9 KN for right and left hands. A similar
trend of values in the range of 6.5 KN to 3.75 KN is obtained for the 40 40 impact
simulation for different values of impact locations. Hence, again it was found that the
impact forces are minimum (and stay low for the overall duration for which the bat is
held) on the hand if the impact is in the range of 35 cm to 40 cm from the shoulder of
- 83 -
the bat. This further verifies the location of sweet spot. Also this analysis gave the
impact forces which are required to carry out the stress analysis on the hand model.
However, impact alone is not the cause of stress in the hand. Even if the
batsman is to swing a bat without impacting the ball with it, still the batsman would
have to apply some force on the bat, which in turn may result into some stresses in the
hand. This force is needed to be calculated and added to the above obtained impact
forces. For this reason another analysis, following closely in the lines of a previous
researcher, is done and these forces, called the swing forces are obtained. Using this
analysis, the swing force for 17 m/s is 641.77 N on left hand and 530.37 N on the
right hand. Similarly for 40 m/s swing the forces are 3.93 KN on left hand and 660.97
N on the right hand.
Total force acting on the hand of the batsman is thus calculated by combining
the swing forces with the impacting forces. The range of forces for 17 35 impact is
4.7 KN to 2.74 KN for the right hand with minimum at 0.35 m, and for left hand it
ranges from 3.32 KN to 1.82 KN with minimum at 0.4 m.
A model of the hand is created. There are certain assumptions involved in the
modelling of the hand, like the muscles are not considered, the structure, as well as
material of the ligaments and has been simplified. Also the shoulder of the arm is
considered as unconstrained. This is done for a realistic simulation. In actual body, the
shoulder end of the humerus bone does not experience fixed constraints. Some
displacement is allowed. So by leaving the model unconstrained, the same value of
displacement has been allowed in the FEA analysis as well.
Using the obtained values of forces, the stress analysis on the hand is carried
out. The stresses developed during the pull shot in the bones, the ligaments of wrist
and elbow are obtained for three different impact locations of 17 35 analysis. For a
0.3 m impact the maximum stress obtained is 83.42 MPa after a time period of 10 ms.
For 0.35 m impact the maximum stress is 58.449 MPa at 10 ms, and for 0.4 m impact
it is 57.585 MPa at 10 ms. The maximum stress is always obtained at the elbow end
of the radius bone. It has also been observed that the batsmen experience pain in the
elbow region most of the times.
- 84 -
Further the wrist ligaments experience stresses around 8.5 MPa for a 0.3 m
impact, 5.9 MPa for a 0.35 m impact and 5.92 MPa for a 0.4 m impact. The elbow
ligaments experience stresses around 24.7 MPa for 0.3 m impact, 17 MPa for 0.35 m
impact and16.6 MPa for 0.4 m impact.
Again it is observed that for sweet spot impacts the stresses in the bones and
ligaments is least.
Another important observation is that since a right hand batsman is being
considered, the right hand is the one that experiences more forces as compared to the
left hand. This observation is also validated by the experience of right handed
batsmen.
- 85 -
FUTURE WORK:
The research that has been carried out as described here, has been succesful in
answering some questions, such as discussed above. However, when it comes to
acutal application in a cricket scenario further work needs to be carried out. The main
target would be to design a bat which can give a good performance. The sweet spot of
the bat is analysed using different interpretations. It would be an interesting work to
study how the sweet spot is affected if the design parameters of the bat change. And
design parameters would include not just physical parameters, such as mass, moment
of inertia, but also changes in shape, material, etc.
Another important thing to be noted on account of future scope is the
assumptions made during this study need to be reduced to improve the accuracy. The
bat handle needs to be assigned a proper material, cane, to be precise. Also when it
comes to transfer of forces from the bat to hand, the grip plays a very important role.
One more very important component which has been overlooked, is the effect of
gloves. Also the hands need to be modelled more realistically, structurally, as well as
the material definitions of bones and ligaments. These components would be difficult
to model but would give an accurate representation of the stresses occuring in the
hand.
- 86 -
APPENDIX I
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IMPLICIT AND AN
EXPLICIT SOLVER
An ordinary solution that is run in ANSYS would be a static analysis. The
governing equation for any static analysis would be a simple linear equation of the
type,
[A] {x} = [B]
Where, [A] and [B] are matrices. [A] is usually a square matrix, called
stiffness matrix and [B] is a column vector, called force vector. In this equation, {x}
would usually be a column vector which denotes the displacement of the nodes, and
hence is called displacement vector.
In such equations, usually time does not play any important role. Therefore
time dependency of the solutions is not a concern.
Implicit solvers follow a time integration scheme where the calculation of the
quantities in the current time step are based on quantities already calculated or known
in the previous or the current time step. This is based on a backward Euler time
integration scheme. Such a scheme allows any length of time interval, and is
unconditionally stable, however large time steps are taken. Thus the number of
iterations required to be run for the solution can be very less. Thus implicit solvers are
preferred for a static analysis where the time steps do not matter much.
However, when it comes to dynamic analysis the situation is not the same.
Dynamic analyses are always time dependent. The load usually would change
drastically with time. Such analyses are applied for situations like a blast, an impact or
a crash test. Such an analysis would use a much different governing equation, which
is like,
[ ]{ } + [ ]{ } + [ ]{ } = { }
- 87 -
Where, [M] represents the mass matrix, [C] represents a damping matrix and
[K] represents the stiffness matrix. { } is a vector which represents the nodal values
for the second order differential of the displacement, i.e. acceleration. Similarly { }
denotes velocity vector and {x}, the nodal displacement vector.
Before proceeding ahead, one thing to be kept in mind is that matrix
multiplication is much easier as compared to matrix inversion. So matrix inversion
costs more computing time, hence computationally expensive.
An implicit solver will solve directly for {x}. This includes an operation on
inverting the [K] matrix. If non linearities are present the matrix [K] itself becomes a
function of x. So it required to solve for [K(x)] also. This requires the use of Newton
Raphson method.
However, an explicit solver solves for { }. Also Explicit Dynamics solver
allows the use of lower order elements only. This results in the mass matrix [M],
being a lumped matrix. Thus the lumped mass approach results in creation of a
diagonal matrix. The inversion of a lumped or diagonal matrix is very easily. This
leaves the solver to do a simple matrix multiplication and inversion of a diagonal
matrix, both of which are not computationally intensive. The [K] matrix which
accounts for material non linearities and contacts, is not required to be inverted. Thus
the computational load per iteration is much lesser than for an implicit analysis.
However explicit analysis has a drawback to it. Explicit analysis is based on
forward time integration approach. This approach, unlike implcit approach, is not
unconditionally stable. Thus there is a limit to the time step that can be taken, called
as critical time step. If the time step becomes greater than this, the solution does not
converge. Therefore explicit analysis cannot be chosen for static solutions, because it
may reduce the computational loads per time step, but increases the number of
iterations, hence on the whole is cumbersome. On the other hand, for a dynamic
analysis, the implicit approach will not work since, dynamic analyses require larger
number of time steps to account for changing loads. Hence the computational load
would be lesser for an explicit solver.
- 88 -
APPENDIX II
RIGID BODY DYNAMICS
Rigid-body dynamics studies the movement of systems of interconnected
bodies under the action of external forces. The assumption that the bodies are rigid,
which means that they do not deform under the action of applied forces, simplifies the
analysis by reducing the parameters that describe the configuration of the system to
the translation and rotation of reference frames attached to each body.
In this appendix, a description of the application of rigid body dynamics on the
impact of the cricket bat and ball is considered. Using the principles of rigid body
dynamics, the exit velocity of the ball is found. This expression has been used in the
work to verify the exit velocity of ball obtained using FEA simulations of impact of
the ball on the bat.
Consider a cricket ball of mass, m1, which is travelling with a velocity, v1b,
and hits a cricket bat of mass, m2. Let the velocity of the center of mass of the bat
before the impact occurs be v2b. The collision occurs and after that the ball leaves the
bat with the velocity, v1a. The bat itself changes its velocity after the collision to a
value v2a, at the center of mass. The bat was swung to the ball such that its angular
velocity before the collision was 2b and after the collision it changes to 2a. The
impact is considered to occur at a distance of B from the center of mass of the bat. Let
the moment of inertia of the bat be I0.
When any two or more bodies are interacting, their total linear as well as
angular momentum will always be conserved. This is called the law of conservation
of linear and angular momentum. Thus the initial and final values of the linear and
angular momentum of the bat and the ball can be equated to obtain Eqs (1) and (2).
+
(1)
(2)
- 89 -
When the bat is impacting the ball, the linear velocity of the impact point on
the bat will be different from the linear velocity of the center of mass of the bat. The
same is true after the impact as well, as shown by Eqs (3) and (4).
=
(3)
(4)
The energy transfer during the process of the impact can be captured using the
definition of the coefficient of restitution, say e. This is shown in Eq (5).
....(5)
Substituting the values of impact point velocities in Eq (5) using Eqs (3) and
(4), we get,
+
=
= (
+
)
..(6)
Rearranging Eq (2) to obtain the value of 2a, we get,

=
Substituting this value in Eq (6),

= (
+ 1+
Rearranging Eq (1), we get another equation for v2a, as,

=
Equating these two equations, we get,
)+
(1 + )
- 90 -
)+
1+
+ 1+
(1 + )(
(1 + )
Thus, we get,
(
)(
.........(7)
This is the equation which defines the exit velocity of the ball after impacting with the
bat. In the case of the present work it can be seen that an assumption has been made
that the angular velocity of the bat is 0. Hence this equation can be reduced as,
+( + )
=
+
Now consider the location of the bat where the exit velocity of the ball will be
maximum. This can be found using the equation shown below:
=0
+ (1 + )(
)
=0
1+
Consider the general differentiation formula:

=
= 0, (
)=0
- 91 -
Then, for the equation in consideration, we get,

1+
+ (1 + )(
+ (1 + )(
+ 1+
=
)=0
From this equation,

,
Hence the equation will be valid only if,

=
B is the distance of the impact point from the center of mass, therefore it can be
interpreted that for maximum ball exit velocity the ball must impact the center of
mass of the bat. This is however, if the bat is moving without any angular velocity.
If the bat has an angular motion as well, the impact location for maximum ball
exit velocity will be slightly lower than the present value.
REFERENCES
- 90 -
[1]
The Laws of cricket, www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/appendix-e-thebat/
[2]
Sabu J, Zhu B L (2002), Multi directional vibration analysis of cricket bats,

www.mams.rnit.edu.au, The Engineering of Sports 4.
[3]
www.espncricinfo.com
[4]
The Laws of cricket, www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-6-the-bat/
[5]
David J, et al (2012), Validity of rigid body model of a cricket ball-bat impact,

9th conference of International Sports Engineering Association.
[6]
Van Zandt L L, (1991), Dynamical theory of the baseball bat, American

Journal of Physics, Vol 60.
[7]
Sutton A D, Sherwood J A (2009), Using vibrational analysis to investigate

the batted-ball performance of baseball bats, 8th Conference of the
International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA).
[8]
Cross R, http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html.
[9]
Cross R (1998), The Sweet Spot of a Baseball Bat, American Journal of

Physics, Volume 66, page 772 779.
[10]
Nathan A M, The Physics of Baseball (or Just How Did McGwire Hit 70?),
Public Lecture Parkland Community College February 9, 1999.
[11]
Nathan A M (2012), The Role of the Batters Grip in the Baseball-Bat

collision, www.baseball.physics.illinois.edu/grip.html
[12]
Noble L., Eck, J. (1986). Effects of selected softball Bat Loading strategies on
impact reaction impulse. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 18, 5059.
[13]
Hariharan V, Srinivasan PSS, Inertial and vibration characteristics of a cricket

bat, www.vibrationdata.com.
- 91 -
[14]
Theil D, et al, (2012), Cricket bat acceleration profile from sweet spot impacts,
9th conference of International Sports Engineering Association.
[15]
Mustone T, et al, (2000) Characterizing the Performance of Baseball Bats

using Experimental and Finite Element Methods, 3rd International Conference
on the Engineering of Sport, June, Sydney, Australia.
[16]
Cross R (2009), Mechanics of Swinging a Bat, American Journal of Physics,

Volume 77, pages 36-43.
[17]
Panjabi and White, Biomechanics in the musculoskeletal system, Chapter 9,

Page 169.
[18]
The Laws of cricket, www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-5-the-ball.
[19]
Cross R (1999), Impact of a ball with a bat or a racket, American Journal of

Physics, Volume 67, pages 692-702.
[20]
Singh H (2008), Experimental and computer modelling to characterize the

performance of cricket bats, MS Thesis, Washington State University, Page
43.
[21]
Chauvin, D.J., Carlson, L.E (1997), A comparative test method for dynamic
response of baseballs and softballs, International Symposium on Safety in
Baseball/Softball. ASTM STP 1313, pages 38-46.
(Partly
available
on
http://books.google.co.in )
[22]
Cameron John R, et al, (1999), Physics of the Body, edition II, Madison WI,
Medical Physics Publishing, Page 96.
[23]
Elizabeth Dumont, et al (2005), Finite element analysis of Biting Behaviour

and Bone Stress in the Facial Skeletons of Bats, The Anatomical record Part
A, 283A:319-330.
[24]
Kesten and Tauck, Chapter 9, Elasticity and Fracture, www.isiteharvard.edu.
[25]
Ronald Houston, (2008), Practical Stress Analysis in engineering Design, III

edition.

Bat Ball Impact On Human Hand

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bat Ball Impact On Human Hand

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

FORCE TRANSFER FROM WRIST TO

Department of Mechanical Engineering

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology(VNIT)

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering

It is hereby declared that this dissertation, entitled FINITE ELEMENT

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Also I would like to acknowledge the support shown by

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF FORCE

Table 6.6: Comparison of the stresses in various

Figure 4.15: Impact of Ball with a Stationary Bat and

Hand for All Impact Locations, 40 40 Analysis................................66

PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................-1 -

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ - 2 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................. - 4 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... - 2 -

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISBAT BALL IMPACT ........................................... - 15 -

4.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. - 45 CHAPTER 5

REACTION FORCES ON HAND ....................................................................... - 24 -

STRESSES INDUCED IN HAND ....................................................................... - 47 -

. Cricket bats typically weigh from 1.1 to 1.4 kg though

there is no restriction on the weight of the bat [2].

Figure 1.1: Nomenclature of a Cricket Bat

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF A BAT

did a significant research on baseball. The standard theory of

. However when the impact

. Thus only the first two modes of vibration are

Figure 2.1: Bending Mode Shapes for Baseball Bat

Figure 2.2: Location of Minimum Amplitude of Vibration

established a very important principle, which has been used by

testing and modelling purposes, a free-free boundary condition of the bat is a

2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF BAT

developed a finite element model to predict the performance of

2.3 REACTION FORCES ON THE WRIST

, interestingly done almost a decade later, using very

2.4 MODELLING OF HAND

Figure 2.3: The Skeletal Structure of the Hand

Figure 2.4: Internal Composition of Femur

. The ligament is generally taken as a viscoelastic material,

2.5 WORK PROPOSED

Experimentation to measure the characteristics of a cricket bat.

Performing a Modal analysis using FEA, and comparing the results to

Using the calibrated model to simulate ball impacts at different locations

Using the technique developed by Cross to obtain the force required to

Modelling the hand and simulating a stress analysis of the same.

3.1 MASS AND CENTRE OF GRAVITY

3.2 MOMENT OF INERTIA

Figure 3.2 Measuring Moment of Inertia of Bat

Average Time Period

Moment of Inertia about the pivot point,

Mass of the bat,

Acceleration due to gravity, and

Distance of the pivot from the Centre of Gravity.

Substituting the values in the Eq 3.1, as,

length of handle + distance of CG from shoulder

Thus, the moment of inertia is obtained as,

1.58 1.36 9.81 0.55

Where, all symbols hold their normal meanings.

Thus, the moment of inertia about centre of mass is obtained as,

0.4640 (1.36 0.552)