Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports

Engineering and Technology
http://pip.sagepub.com/

Aerodynamics of a golf ball with grooves

Jooha Kim and Haecheon Choi
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology published
online 29 July 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1754337114543860

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pip.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/21/1754337114543860
A more recent version of this article was published on - Nov 18, 2014

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and
Technology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pip.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pip.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pip.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/21/1754337114543860.refs.html

Version of Record - Nov 18, 2014

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 29, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
19
Aerodynamics of a golf ball with IMechE 2014
Reprints and permissions:
grooves sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1754337114543860
pip.sagepub.com

Jooha Kim and Haecheon Choi

Abstract
In this study, we investigate the aerodynamics of our newly designed golf ball that does not have dimples but grooves on
its surface. The smooth part of its surface is approximately 1.7 times that of a golf ball with dimples. We directly measure
the drag and lift forces on two versions of this golf ball in the ranges of real golf-ball velocity and rotational speed, and
compare them with those of smooth and dimpled balls. At zero spin, the drag coefficient of our balls shows a rapid fall-
off at a Reynolds number similar to that of a dimpled ball and maintains nearly a constant value (lower by 50% than that
of smooth ball) at higher Reynolds numbers. At non-zero spin, the lift-to-drag ratio of one version of our ball is higher
by 5%20% in the supercritical Reynolds number regime than that of a dimpled ball, but it is lower otherwise. With the
measured drag and lift forces, we predict the trajectories of our balls and compare them to those of smooth and
dimpled balls for the same initial conditions. The flight distances of our balls are larger by 148%202% than that of
smooth ball and shorter by 6%10% than that of a dimpled ball.

Keywords
Aerodynamics, golf ball, groove, lift, drag

Date received: 27 December 2013; accepted: 19 June 2014

Introduction that dimples cause local flow separations and trigger

Increasing the flight distance has been one of the major
goals of golf-ball design. To achieve this goal, the sur-
face of a golf ball has been changed from smooth (e.g.
feathery golf ball in the 17th century) to dimpled sur-
face, since a professor at Saint Andrews University dis-
covered that a golf ball with a scored surface flew
farther than that with smooth surface in mid-19th cen-
tury.1 Bearman and Harvey2 showed that dimples not
only reduce the drag on a golf ball by 50% but also
maintain the reduced drag coefficient,
CD = D=(0:5 rU20 A), nearly constant over a range of
Reynolds numbers, Re = U0 d=n, where D is the drag,
U0 is the free-stream velocity, d is the diameter of the
ball, r is the density, n is the kinematic viscosity, and
A (=pd2/4) is the cross-sectional area of the ball. Smits
and Ogg3 considered an optimization of the dimple pat-
tern, including the dimple size and shape, to reduce
drag on a golf ball. They suggested that the dimple pat-
tern should be designed to promote turbulence at the
lowest possible Reynolds number without creating an
undesirable extra drag due to roughness. Choi et al.4
explained by measuring the streamwise velocity above
the dimpled surface how dimples on a sphere promote
turbulence and lead to drag reduction. They showed
the shear-layer instability along the separated shear
layers, resulting in the generation of large turbulent
fluctuations, reattachment to the surface with high
momentum near the wall, and delay of main separa-
tion. This mechanism was confirmed by Smith et al.5
using direct numerical simulation. Nowadays, most
golf balls have about 250450 dimples on their surfaces
to fully make use of their effect of reducing drag.
Another goal of golf-ball design is to improve the
putting accuracy because the putting accounts for
38%50% of the total shots played in a round for both
amateur and professional golfers.69 Jack Nicklaus, one
of the most accomplished professional golfers, noted
the importance of putting in 1976, Undoubtedly, the
majority of present-day tournaments are decided on
the putting surface. Recently, Alexander and Kern10
examined the determinants of the earnings of
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National
University, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author:
Haecheon Choi, Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering,
Seoul National University, Seoul 151744, Korea.
Email: choi@snu.ac.kr

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014

2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology
Professional Golf Association (PGA) Tour golfers
from the period 19922001 and pointed out that the
putting ability is the most important determinant of
earnings.
Although they reduce the drag on the ball and
increase the flight distance, dimples are known to dete-
riorate the putting accuracy owing to their edges. As
Pelz8 pointed out, when the putter face contacts with
the edge of a dimple, the ball rotates and starts slightly
off-line. To avoid this problem, one may draw a circle
around the largest dimple-free area on a golf ball to
mark Dot-Spot.8 This spot becomes a hitting point
so that a putter can make contact with the smooth sur-
face of a golf ball. Despite the effort to enhance the
putting accuracy, only about 17% of putts from 4 m
were holed in the PGA tournaments during the years of
19771992.8 This low rate of success is caused by the
direction deviation in putting. Tierney and Coop11
showed that the mean direction deviation in PGA Tour
veterans was 1.3% of the putting distance. Karlsen12
reported that the mean putting deviation during repeti-
tive putts for eight elite players was 1.8% on a flat
indoor green. Recently, Caesar Golf Company made a
perfectly smooth golf ball, The Caesar Featherie, by
eliminating dimples on the surface. In the review of this
ball, however, it was expected that the Caesar Featherie
would drop quickly and achieve anywhere from 30% to
80% of a clubs normal distance because this ball is
designed without dimples for accuracy rather than for
distance.13 Therefore, it is very desirable to design a
new golf ball that has both high putting accuracy and
good aerodynamic performance (i.e. large flight
distance).
Recently, we devised a new golf ball that did not
have dimples but grooves on its surface.14,15 This ball is
much smoother than conventional dimpled balls. For
example, the area of grooves is less than 50% of total
surface, whereas that of dimples is larger than 70%.
Therefore, accurate putts are naturally expected for the
ball by Choi et al.14 (called G ball hereafter). Since
the G ball has higher putting accuracy than dimpled
balls (see below), an important question is now how far
this ball flies. To investigate the aerodynamic perfor-
mance of the G ball, we directly measure the drag and
lift forces on the two versions of G balls in the ranges
of real golf-ball velocity and rotational speed through
Figure 1. Four golf-ball models tested: (a) smooth ball, (b) dimpled ball, (c) G1 ball, and (d) G2 ball.
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014
wind-tunnel experiments and compare them with those
of smooth and dimpled balls. With the measured aero-
dynamic forces, the trajectories for the smooth,
dimpled, and G balls are computed for comparison.
Methods
Test balls
Four golf-ball models are tested in this study: smooth,
dimpled, and two G balls (Figure 1). These golf-ball
models of 150 mm diameter are made of acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) resin. The present dimple-ball
model (Figure 1(b)) is dynamically similar to a real golf
ball (Titleist Pro V1x); 332 dimples are on the surface,
and their depth is about 0.9 mm. Figure 1(c) and (d)
shows two versions of G balls that are designed to be
nearly spherically symmetric and thus may satisfy the
United States Golf Association (USGA) rules. They
have 48 triangular and 6 tetragonal smooth surfaces
surrounded by net-shaped grooves, and the depth and
the width of grooves in G balls are 0.8 and 10 mm,
respectively. The net-shaped grooves are connected to
(Figure 1(c); denoted as G1 ball hereafter) or separated
from others (Figure 1(d); denoted as G2 ball hereafter).
The G2 ball has more smooth surfaces than the G1 ball
because pentagon- or hexagon-shaped smooth parts
(gray color in Figure 1(d)) are added to the G1 ball at
all the intersection points of the grooves.
To show the superior putting accuracy of G balls, we
drop two balls (dimpled and G1 balls, respectively) on a
flat surface and record their bounce trajectories using a
high-speed camera (Photron FASTCAM Super 10K) at
250 fps. As shown in Figure 2, the G1 ball bounces back
toward its original position when it is dropped with its
flat area facing down in the direction of gravity. On the
other hand, the dimpled ball bounces back with a devia-
tion of 13 from its original position. This amount of
deviation angle agrees well with the result of Pelz.8
Wind-tunnel experiments
Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram of the present
experimental setup, consisting of an open-type wind
tunnel, golf-ball model, motor, supporter, and load cell.
The same wind tunnel is used as that described by Jeon
et al.,16 and the background turbulence intensity at the
Kim and Choi
Figure 2. Bounce trajectories of the (a) dimpled ball and (b)
G1 ball. The numbers (19) in this figure denote the time
sequence and the consecutive time interval is 0.02 s.
free-stream velocity of 10 m/s is lower than 0.5%. Son
et al.17 showed that the background turbulence inten-
sity within 0.5% has little effect on the flow over a
sphere at the Reynolds number range investigated in
this study. The cross section of the wind tunnel after
contraction is 600 mm 3 600 mm, and the maximum
wind speed at the test section is 30 m/s. The golf-ball
model is installed at the center of the test section, and
the side walls are located at two times the diameter of
the golf-ball model away from its center. The blockage
ratio of the cross-sectional area of the golf-ball model
to the test-sectional area is 4.9%, which is below the
critical value ensuring negligible blockage effect accord-
ing to Achenbach.18 Stanczak et al.19 measured the
wake behind rotating dimpled balls using a hot-wire
anemometry and showed that the size of tilted wake at
x/d \ 2 is smaller than the ball diameter, where x is the
streamwise distance from the center of the dimpled ball.
Therefore, the test section of our wind tunnel is wide
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014
3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
enough such that the side walls have little effect on the
flow in the wake and the drag and lift forces. A small
direct current (DC) motor is installed inside the golf-
ball model and rotates it about the vertical axis. The
vibration of the model due to the rotation is minimized
by avoiding the resonance of the system. The rotational
speed of the model is varied by adjusting the voltage
applied to the motor and measured using a tachometer.
The model with motor is fixed to the supporter that is
designed to minimize the support interference. The
upper part of the supporter is a pipe in which two wires
supply a voltage to the motor inside the model. The dia-
meter of this pipe is only 2% of the golf-ball model dia-
meter. The lower part of the supporter is shaped into an
ellipse with a ratio of major to minor axis of 2. The drag
and lift on the model are measured using a load cell
(CAS BCL-3L) attached to the supporter. The calibra-
tion curve is linear, and the uncertainty of force mea-
surement is 62.5%. The output from the load cell is
amplified and sampled for 60 s at the rate of 32 kHz to
obtain a fully converged mean drag and lift. The data
from the measurement are transferred to a computer
through an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter (NI PCI-
6251) and post-processed. Note that, in this study, the
golf-ball model is supported from the bottom for its
rotation. Kray et al.20 showed that the drag coefficient
of the sphere supported from the bottom is higher than
that supported from the rear due to the support inter-
ference in the first case. In their study, the supporter on
the bottom was rotated together with a sphere and the
drag on the rotating supporter was not directly mea-
sured but assessed from the previous results21 of a
rotating cylinder. On the other hand, in this study, the
supporter does not rotate and the measured forces are
corrected by subtracting those of isolated supporter
measured separately. This force measurement method
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology

has been used by our group in the past22,23 and shown

to be accurate (see below).
The free-stream velocity U0 varies from 5 to 27 m/s,
corresponding to the Reynolds numbers,
Re = 0.5 3 1052.7 3 105. The rotational speed (N) of
the golf-ball model varies from 0 (stationary) to
330 r/min, corresponding to the spin ratios (ratio of
maximum surface velocity to the free-stream velocity),
a = pdN/(60U0) = 00.52. These cover the ranges of
real golf-ball Reynolds number and spin ratio.24 The
drag and lift coefficients, CD and CL, are defined as Figure 4. Trajectory computation.

D L
CD = , CL = 1
0:5 rU20 A 0:5 rU20 A Table 1. Initial conditions for average driver shots2628 (see
Figure 4).

where L is the lift on the golf-ball model. v0 (m/s) u0 () v0 (rad/s)

PGA tour 74.7 10.9 281.3

Trajectory computation LPGA tour 62.1 13.2 273.4
Male amateur with a 61.7 11.9 334.3
With the measured aerodynamic forces and initial con- handicap of 10
ditions, it may be possible to compute the trajectory of Female amateur with a 53.2 12.4 335.8
handicap of 10
a golf-ball drive. For the computation of trajectories,
we assume that the golf ball satisfies a quasi-steady PGA: Professional Golf Association; LPGA: Ladies Professional Golf
state at every instance. The drag and lift coefficients Association.
are obtained from the interpolation of measured data.
The equations of motion2 derived from the Newtons
second law are
"   2 #
d2 x rA dx 2 dy
= + (CD cos u + CL sin u)
dt2 2m dt dt
2

"   2 #
d2 y rA dx 2 dy
2
= + (CL cos u  CD sin u)  g
dt 2m dt dt
3

where x and y are the positions of the ball in the hori-

zontal and vertical directions, respectively; m is the
mass of the ball; u is the inclination angle of the flight
path to the horizontal line; and g is the gravitational
acceleration (Figure 4). The effect of spin decay during
a flight is also considered using the exponential spin-
decay model proposed by Smits and Smith25
 
2cv
v(t) = v0 exp  t 4
d
where v is the rotational speed (rad/s), v0 is the initial
rotational speed, c is the experimental constant
(=5 3 1025), v is the velocity, and t is the time. Initial
conditions are determined on the basis of the average
professional and amateur driver shots as shown in
Table 1.2628 A fourth-order RungeKutta (RK4)
method is used to integrate equations (2) and (3) with
the computational time step size of Dt = 0.001 s.
Figure 5. Variation in the drag coefficient with the Reynolds
number for stationary (non-rotating) balls: s, smooth ball29; ,
smooth ball (present); 3, dimpled ball2;M, dimpled ball4; N,
dimpled ball (present); h, G1 ball (present); and j, G2 ball
(present).
Results and discussion
Drag variation on stationary golf balls
Figure 5 shows the drag coefficients of smooth,
dimpled, and two G balls, together with those of previ-
ous studies. The present drag coefficient of a smooth
ball shows good agreement with that of Achenbach.29
Also, the present result on the dimpled ball shows that
the minimum drag coefficient is between the results of
Bearman and Harvey2 and Choi et al.4 This is because
the depth of present dimples (k/d 0.6 3 1022) is

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014

Kim and Choi 5

Figure 6. Variations in the (a) drag coefficient, (b) lift coefficient, and (c) lift-to-drag ratio for dimpled (left) and G2 (right) balls with
the Reynolds number at N = 0330 r/min: s, N = 0 r/min (no spin); N, 150 r/min; j, 250 r/min; and , 330 r/min.

between those of Bearman and Harvey2 (k/d = 0.9 3
1022) and Choi et al.4 (k/d = 0.4 3 1022), where k is
the dimple depth. These good agreements in the drag
coefficients of smooth and dimpled balls indicate the
reliability of the present results in the subcritical, criti-
cal, and supercritical Reynolds number ranges.
Like the dimpled ball, the drag coefficients of two G
balls start to decrease at much lower Reynolds numbers
than that of the smooth ball, indicating that the multi-
ple grooves on the surfaces of G balls result in an aero-
dynamic characteristics similar to that of dimples. The
G2 ball shows a rapid fall-off of CD at a Reynolds
number similar to that of the dimpled ball. The drag
coefficient of the G2 ball is slightly higher near the crit-
ical Reynolds number range than that of the present
dimpled ball, but the minimum drag coefficient is
similar to that of the present dimpled ball, showing
about 50% drag reduction as compared to that of
smooth ball. For both the dimpled and G2 balls, the
reduced drag coefficients remain nearly constant at
supercritical Reynolds numbers of Re = 1.1 3 105
2.7 3 105.
It is interesting to note that the drag coefficient of
the G2 ball decreases faster than that of the G1 ball,
although the G2 ball has more smooth surfaces. The
role of grooves in drag reduction is to trigger the flow
instability along the shear layer separated from the
edges of the grooves, and this mechanism of grooves is
similar to that of dimples.4,5 As mentioned previously,
in the G2 ball, pentagon- or hexagon-shaped smooth
parts (gray color in Figure 1(d)) are added to the G1
ball at all the intersection points of the grooves for the

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014

6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology
Figure 7. Variations in the (a) drag coefficient, (b) lift
coefficient, and (c) lift-to-drag ratio for dimpled (black) and G2
(red) balls with the spin ratio: , Re = 0.5 3 105; , 0.7 3 105; s,
laminar separation occurs on the retreating side and
0.9 3 105; h, 1.1 3 105; M, 1.3 3 105; P, 1.5 3 105; , 1.7 3 105;
j, 1.9 3 105; N, 2.1 3 105; H, 2.3 3 105; + , 2.5 3 105; and 3,
2.7 3 105.
purpose of blocking possible flow paths inside the
grooves. From the edges on the smooth parts at the
intersection points as well as those of grooves, the
shear-layer instability occurs and thus the flow separa-
tion is delayed, resulting in more drag reduction from
the G2 ball.
Drag, lift, and lift-to-drag ratio of rotating golf balls
Figure 6 shows the variations in the drag and lift coeffi-
cients and lift-to-drag ratio of the rotating dimpled and
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014
G2 balls with the Reynolds number at N = 150
330 r/min, together with those of stationary (0 r/min)
balls. At supercritical Reynolds numbers of
Re = 1.1 3 1052.7 3 105, the drag coefficients of both
balls decrease with increasing Reynolds number at a
given rotational speed, but they increase with increas-
ing rotational speed (Figure 6(a)). The present result
agrees well with that of Bearman and Harvey.2 The lift
coefficients show the same behavior as the drag coeffi-
cients (Figure 6(b)). The behavior of the lift-to-drag
ratio is also similar to that of the lift coefficient, in that
it increases with the rotational speed and decreases with
increasing Reynolds number in the supercritical regime.
In the critical regime, it is interesting to note that the
lift coefficient becomes negative at Re = 0.5 3 105 and
N = 150 r/min (Figure 6(b)). This phenomenon is
closely related to the asymmetric boundary-layer
separation, which is discussed below.
The variations in the drag and lift coefficients with
the spin ratio are shown in Figure 7(a) and (b). At
Re = 1.1 3 1052.7 3 105 (supercritical Reynolds num-
bers), the drag and lift coefficients measured from dif-
ferent Reynolds numbers collapse well into one line
and increase with the spin ratio. This behavior agrees
well with the result of Bearman and Harvey2 investi-
gated for a dimpled ball. On the retreating side, the ball
surface moves in the same direction with the flow and
the near-wall momentum increases with the spin ratio,
resulting in the separation delay. Thus, the lift coeffi-
cient increases with the spin ratio. In the supercritical
Reynolds numbers, the drag coefficients of the G2 ball
are higher by 4%10% than those of the dimpled ball
(e.g. at Re = 1.9 3 105 and a = 0.14, the drag coeffi-
cients of the dimpled and G2 balls are 0.28 and 0.30,
respectively), but its lift coefficients are also higher by
10%27% than those of the dimpled ball (e.g. at
Re = 1.9 3 105 and a = 0.14, the lift coefficients of the
dimpled and G2 balls are 0.20 and 0.25, respectively).
On the other hand, at Re = 0.5 3 1050.9 3 105 (crit-
ical Reynolds numbers), the drag and lift coefficients
deviate from those at supercritical Reynolds numbers
and show more complicated behaviors. This is because
turbulent separation on the advancing side (i.e. side
moving against the flow) at critical Reynolds numbers,
whereas turbulent separations occur on both sides at
supercritical Reynolds numbers.30 The asymmetric
boundary-layer separation was also observed for a
cricket ball because the seam trips the laminar bound-
ary layer into turbulence on only one side of the ball.3133
As mentioned before, the lift coefficient of the dimpled
ball becomes negative at Re = 0.5 3 105 and a = 0.24.
This phenomenon is called the inverse (or negative)
Magnus effect. The negative lift on a rotating golf ball
with dimples was also observed experimentally and
numerically.2,30 The lift coefficient of the G2 ball also
becomes negative at Re = 0.5 3 105 and a = 0.24, but is
close to 0.
Kim and Choi 7

Figure 8. Computed trajectories and the corresponding flight distances (in meter) of the smooth, dimpled, G1, and G2 balls for
the same initial conditions of (a) PGA Tour, (b) LPGA Tour, (c) male amateur with a handicap of 10, and (d) female amateur with a
handicap of 10: .., smooth; - - -, dimpled; -  -, G1; and , G2.

Figure 7(c) shows the lift-to-drag ratio (i.e. the aero-
dynamic performance) for the dimpled and G2 balls.
At Re = 1.1 3 1052.7 3 105, the lift-to-drag ratios of
the G2 ball are higher by 5%20% than those of the
dimpled ball (e.g. at Re = 1.9 3 105 and a = 0.14, the
lift-to-drag ratios of the dimpled and G2 balls are 0.71
and 0.83, respectively), implying that the aerodynamic
performance of the G2 ball is better at supercritical
Reynolds numbers and spin ratios considered. On the
other hand, at Re = 0.5 3 1050.9 3 105, the perfor-
mance of the G2 ball is worse than that of the dimpled
ball. As discussed in the below, the flight trajectory of
each ball is influenced by this L/D characteristics at the
critical and supercritical Reynolds numbers.
Flight trajectory
Figure 8(a)(d) shows the computed trajectories and
the corresponding flight distances (in meter) of the
smooth, dimpled, G1, and G2 balls for the same initial
conditions (Table 1). The flight distance of the dimpled
ball is about 1.72.2 times larger than that of the
smooth ball. For the average PGA and Ladies
Professional Golf Association (LPGA) Tour players
(Figure 8(a) and (b)), the flight distances of G1 and G2
balls are about 90%91% and 94% that of the dimpled
ball, respectively. As shown in Figure 8(c) and (d), sim-
ilar trends are observed for the average male and
female amateur players.
The Reynolds numbers and lift-to-drag ratios of the
dimpled and G2 balls during the flight are shown in
Figure 9 in the case of PGA Tour average driver shot.
The Reynolds numbers of both balls decrease as they
fly and show slight increases at the ends of the flights
owing to the gravitational acceleration. In the early
period of the flight (supercritical Reynolds number
range), L/D of the G2 ball is larger by up to 18% than
that of the dimpled ball (e.g. at t = 0.1 s, the lift-to-drag

Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014

8 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology
Figure 9. Variations in the flight Reynolds number and lift-to-
drag ratio in time for the dimpled and G2 balls in the case of
PGA Tour average driver shot: - - -, Re (dimpled); , Re (G2);
s, L/D (dimpled); and M, L/D (G2).
Figure 10. Variations in the flight Reynolds number and spin
ratio in time for the dimpled and G2 balls in the case of PGA
Tour average driver shot: - - -, dimpled and , G2.
ratios of the dimpled and G2 balls are 0.59 and 0.70,
respectively), and thus the G2 ball flies higher than the
dimpled ball as shown in Figure 8(a). However, as the
speed of the ball decreases owing to the drag, the flight
Reynolds number decreases and reaches the critical
Reynolds number regime. Then, the G2 ball rapidly
descends as seen in Figure 8(a) because of lower lift-to-
drag ratios in the critical Reynolds number regime
(Figure 9), resulting in a shorter flight distance than
that of the dimpled ball.
Figure 10 shows the variations in the flight Reynolds
number and spin ratio in time for the dimpled and G2
balls in the case of PGA tour average driver shot
(Table 1). As mentioned previously, the spin decay dur-
ing a flight is considered using the model, equation (4),
proposed by Smits and Smith.25 The spin ratios of both
balls gradually increase as they fly, because the speeds
of both balls decrease faster than the rotational speeds
do. However, at the end of the flight, the flight
Reynolds numbers increase with time owing to the
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014
gravitational acceleration (Figure 9), but the rotational
speeds keep decreasing, and thus, the spin ratios reduce
rapidly. This behavior agrees well with the result of
Beasley and Camp24 investigated for a dimpled ball.
Conclusion
In this study, we evaluated the aerodynamic perfor-
mances of our newly designed golf balls with grooves on
its surface (called G1 and G2 balls) through wind-tunnel
experiments. At zero spin (a = 0), the drag coefficient of
G2 ball showed a rapid fall-off at a critical Reynolds
number and maintained a constant value (50% lower
than that on smooth ball) at larger Reynolds numbers,
indicating that the multiple grooves on the surface
resulted in a similar aerodynamic characteristics to those
of dimples at zero spin. At non-zero a (i.e. rotating ball),
both the drag and lift coefficients of the G2 ball were
higher than those of the dimpled ball in the supercritical
Reynolds number regime, but its lift-to-drag ratio was
also higher by about 5%20% than that of the dimpled
ball. However, at the critical Reynolds number regime,
the aerodynamic performance of the G2 ball was worse
than that of the dimpled ball.
With the measured aerodynamic forces, the trajec-
tories of the smooth, dimpled, G1, and G2 balls were
computed for same initial condition. In the early period
of the flight, the lift-to-drag ratio of G2 ball was higher
than that of the dimpled ball, and thus, the G2 ball flied
higher than the dimpled ball. As the flight Reynolds
number of G2 ball changed from the supercritical to
critical flow regime, however, the lift-to-drag ratio of
G2 ball became much lower than that of the dimpled
ball and the G2 ball rapidly descended. As a result, for
the average professional and amateur players, the flight
distances of G2 ball were about 1.62 times larger than
those of smooth ball, but was 4.5%6% shorter than
those of the dimpled ball, respectively. Note that the
present flight distances were obtained with the quasi-
steady state assumption and spin-decay model in equa-
tions (2)(4).
Although the flight distances of G balls are slightly
shorter than that of the dimpled ball, the G balls have
more smooth surfaces and provide more accurate put-
ting. For better aerodynamic performance of the G
balls, a strategy of increasing the lift-to-drag ratio in
the critical Reynolds number range should be devel-
oped, which is underway in our group.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the research programs
(2011-0028032, 2014M3C1B1033980) of NRF, MSIP,
Korea.
Kim and Choi
References
1. Chase A. A slice of golf. Science 1981; 81: 9091.
2. Bearman PW and Harvey JK. Golf ball aerodynamics.
Aeronaut Quart 1976; 27: 112122.
3. Smits AJ and Ogg S. Aerodynamics of the golf ball. In:
Hung GK and Pallis JM (eds) Biomedical engineering
principles in sports. New York: Springer, 2004, pp.327.
4. Choi J, Jeon W-P and Choi H. Mechanism of drag
reduction by dimples on a sphere. Phys Fluids 2006; 18:
041702.
5. Smith C, Beratlis N, Balaras E, et al. Numerical investi-
gation of the flow over a golf ball in the subcritical and
supercritical regimes. Int J Heat Fluid Fl 2010; 31: 262
273.
6. Palmer A and Dobereiner P. Arnold Palmers complete
book of putting. London: Stanley Paul, 1986.
7. Wiren G. Golf: building a solid game. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987.
8. Pelz D. Dave Pelzs putting bible: the complete guide to
mastering the green. New York: Random House Digital,
Inc., 2000.
9. Dorling K. Golf skills. London: Dorling Kindersley Ltd,
2011.
10. Alexander DL and Kern W. Drive for show and putt for
dough? An analysis of the earnings of PGA Tour golfers.
J Sport Econ 2005; 6: 4660.
11. Tierney DE and Coop RH. A bivariate probability model
for putting proficiency. In: The third world scientific con-
gress of golf, St Andrews, 2024 July 1998, pp.385394.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12. Karlsen J. Golf putting: an analysis of elite-players tech-
nique and performance. Masters Thesis, Norwegian Uni-
versity of Sport and Physical Education, Oslo, 2003.
13. Barzeski EJ. Caesar Featherie dimpleless golf ball review.
TheSandTrap.com, http://thesandtrap.com/b/balls/cae-
sar_featherie_dimpleless_golf_ball_review (2008, accessed
26 December 2013).
14. Choi HC, Choi J and Son GM. Golf ball. Patent
EP2112948, England, Germany, and France, 2013.
15. Kim J and Choi H. Aerodynamics of a golf ball with
grooves. In: Proceedings of the seventh international sym-
posium on turbulence and shear flow phenomena, Ottawa,
ON, Canada, 2831 July 2011, paper no. 4D2P. Avail-
able at: http://www.tsfp-conference.org/images/stories/
proceedings/2011/4d2p.pdf
16. Jeon S, Choi J, Jeon W-P, et al. Active control of flow
over a sphere for drag reduction at a subcritical Reynolds
number. J Fluid Mech 2004; 517: 113129.
17. Son K, Choi J, Jeon W-P, et al. Effect of free-stream tur-
bulence on the flow over a sphere. Phys Fluids 2010; 22:
045101.
Downloaded from pip.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 6, 2014
9
18. Achenbach E. The effects of surface roughness and tunnel
blockage on the flow past spheres. J Fluid Mech 1974; 65:
113125.
19. Stanczak MB, Lemons LD, Beasley DE, et al. Observa-
tions of the wake characteristics of spinning golf balls.
In: The third world scientific congress of golf, St Andrews,
2024 July 1998, pp.440456. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
20. Kray T, Franke J and Frank W. Magnus effect on a
rotating sphere at high Reynolds numbers. J Wind Eng
Ind Aerod 2012; 110: 19.
21. Swanson WM. The Magnus effect: a summary of investi-
gations to date. J Basic Eng: T ASME 1961; 83: 461470.
22. Park H and Choi H. Aerodynamic characteristics of fly-
ing fish in gliding flight. J Exp Biol 2010; 213: 32693279.
23. Park H, Bae K, Lee B, et al. Aerodynamic performance
of a gliding swallowtail butterfly wing model. Exp Mech
2010; 50: 13131321.
24. Beasley D and Camp T. Effects of dimple design on the
aerodynamic performance of a golf ball. In: The fourth
world scientific congress of golf, St Andrews, 2226 July
2002, pp.328340. London: Routledge.
25. Smits A and Smith D. A new aerodynamic model of a
golf ball in flight. In: The second world scientific congress
of golf, St Andrews, 48 July 1994, pp.340347. London:
E & FN Spon.
26. TrackMan company. Ball speed, http://mytrackman.
com/explore/trackman-data/trackman-ball-data/ball-speed
(accessed 10 April 2014).
27. TrackMan company. Launch angle, http://mytrackman.
com/explore/trackman-data/trackman-ball-data/launch-
angle (accessed 10 April 2014).
28. TrackMan company. Spin rate, http://mytrackman.com/
explore/trackman-data/trackman-ball-data/spin-rate (accessed
10 April 2014).
29. Achenbach E. Experiments on the flow past spheres at
very high Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 1972; 54:
565575.
30. Beratlis N, Squires K and Balaras E. Numerical investiga-
tion of Magnus effect on dimpled spheres. J Turbul 2012;
13: 115.
31. Mehta RD. Aerodynamics of sports balls. Annu Rev Fluid
Mech 1985; 17: 151189.
32. Lock GD, Edwards S and Almond DP. Flow visualiza-
tion experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a
cricket ball. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering
and Technology 2010; 224: 191199.
33. Scobie JA, Pickering SG, Almond DP, et al. Fluid
dynamics of cricket ball swing. Proc IMechE, Part P: J
Sports Engineering and Technology 2013; 227: 196208.