Sports Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 61–71 | Cite as

Badminton shuttlecock aerodynamics: synthesizing experiment and theory

Original Article

Abstract

In this study, the flight performance of four models of shuttlecocks, two with feather skirts and two with plastic, is investigated. The aerodynamic forces of each shuttlecock at varying air speed and angle of attack are measured in a subsonic wind tunnel. Empirical correlations derived from these data are then incorporated into an adaptive, shuttlecock-specific numerical trajectory simulation. These simulated trajectories are in good agreement with experimental results, with average and maximum errors of 2.5 and 9.1% in vertical distance travelled. The aerodynamically adaptive trajectory model is used to analyse four common types of badminton shot: serve, net, smash and high clear. From these simulations, it is found that the trajectory paths of the higher quality plastic shuttlecock most closely mimic those of the feather shuttlecock of same speed grade. Results of both aerodynamic testing and trajectory simulation provide quantitative support for players’ preference for the ‘feel’ and responsiveness of feather shuttlecocks. It is also observed that plastic shuttlecocks fly faster than do feather shuttlecocks under smash shots, a behaviour explained by a reduction of drag due to skirt deformation observed in wind tunnel experiments at high flight velocity. The results of the study highlight the influence of shuttlecock design and material on shuttlecock flight.

Keywords

Badminton Shuttlecock Aerodynamics Simulation Trajectory 

References

  1. 1.
    Lowell AL (1916) A Roxbury garden. In: Men, Women and Ghosts. The MacMillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwan M, Cheng CL, Tang WT, Rasmussen J (2010) Measurement of badminton racket deflection during a stroke. Sports Eng 12:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooke A (1999) Shuttlecock aerodynamics. Sports Eng 2:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooke A, Mullins J (2007) The flight of the shuttlecock. New Scientist 1916:40–42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lambert C (2010) Badminton’s lightning charm. Harv Mag 57–59Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alam F, Chowdhury H, Theppadungporn C, Subic A (2010) Measurements of aerodynamic properties of badminton shuttlecocks. Procedia Eng 2:2487–2492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooke A (2002) Computer simulation of shuttlecock trajectories. Sports Eng 5:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen LM, Pan YH, Chen YJ (2009) A study of shuttlecock’s trajectory in badminton. J Sports Sci Med 8:657–662Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peastrel M, Lynch R, Angelo A (1980) Terminal velocity of a shuttlecock in vertical fall. Am J Phys 48(7):511–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Post SL, McLachlan J, Lonas T, Dancs J, Knobloch D, Darrow C et al (2009) Aerodynamics of a badminton shuttlecock. In: ASME 2009 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. ASME, Lake Buena, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehta RD (1985) Aerodynamics of Sport Balls. Annu Rev Inc 17:151–189Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsai CL, Huang CF, Jih SC (1997) Biomechanical analysis of four different badminton forehand overhead strokes. Phys Educ J 22:189–200Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang SS (2002) Kinematic analysis via three-dimensional cinematography for two types of forehand smash stroke in senior high school badminton players. Masters thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watts RG, Ferrer R (1987) The lateral force on spinning sphere: aerodynamics of a curveball. Am J Phys 55(1):40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stevens D (2008) Forum discussion Badmintoncentral.com. Accessed 10 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davies JM (1949) The aerodynamics of golf balls. J Appl Phys 20:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations