Advertisement

Sports Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 177–188 | Cite as

The influence of equipment variations on sliotar–hurley impact in the Irish game of hurling

  • Amjad Alsakarneh
  • Keith Bryan
  • Matt Cotterell
  • John Barrett
Original Article

Abstract

The game of hurling is ranked as one of the fastest and most skilful field games in the world. It is played by a stick, hurley, made of ash wood and a ball, sliotar, made of a cork core or similar viscoelastic materials. Better standardisation of the game equipment requires analysing impacts to quantify precisely the effect of variations in equipment design on the resultant impact force at low and high striking speeds. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to use a high-speed camera to (1) characterise the impact dynamics in term of impact force magnitude and duration, and (2) investigate whether a relationship exists between the game equipment and the magnitude of the impact force. An air cannon unit (ACU) test rig was set up to cause the sliotar to strike the hurley at predetermined speeds. A high-speed camera operating at 12,500 frames per second (fps) was used to capture 32 experimental impacts covering a range of sliotar and hurley brands, impact locations and impact speeds. The factor “sliotar brand” was identified as the most significant factor for the impact force among other main factors and two-factor interactions at a constant speed and it had a significant effect with up to 27 % difference between sliotar brands. It was demonstrated that, at higher impact speeds, the force–deformation curves of the sliotar brands varied significantly, even though similar force–deformation curves have been reported at quasi-static compression and similar COR values at low impact speeds using the standard free-drop test. This is the first known study to characterise the unique, highly non-linear and anisotropic sliotar–hurley impact using high-speed camera technology. It highlights the need for a tighter standard for sliotar materials and manufacturing to increase uniformity between different brands and strongly suggests that the standard free-drop test is not sufficient to characterise and compare game equipment.

Keywords

Analysis High-speed camera Hurling ball Impact force DoE 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr Ger Rasmussen for data collection and technical advice and the support of the CIT Department of Mechanical Engineering in making the air cannon unit and Instron mechanical tester freely available. The authors would like to acknowledge the funding from the Institutes of Technology of Ireland Strand 3 research programme in the Smart Systems Integration Group project.

References

  1. 1.
    Fahey G, Hassett L, Bradaigh C (1998) Mechanical analysis of equipment for the game of hurling. J Sports Eng 1:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collins F, Brabazon D, Moran K (2010) The dynamic viscoelastic characterisation of the impact behaviour of the GAA sliotar. Proc Eng 2:2991–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaelic Athletic Association (2008) Official guide part 1. http://www.gaa.ie. Accessed 10 January 2011
  4. 4.
    Cross R (1999) Impact of a ball with a bat or racket. Am J Phys 67(8):692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nathan A (2000) Dynamics of the baseball–bat collision. Am J Phys 68(11):979–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith L, Shenoy M, Axtell J (2000) Simulated composite baseball bat impacts using numerical and experimental techniques. In Proceedings of the society of experimental mechanics, Orlando, FL, Society for Experimental Mechanics Inc., Bethal, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shenoy M, Smith L, Axtell J (2001) Performance assessment of wood, metal and composite baseball bats. Compos Struct 52:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nicholls R, Miller K, Elliott B (2006) Numerical analysis of maximal bat performance in baseball. J Biomech 39:1001–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng N, Subic A, Takla M (2008) Development of a fast-solving numerical model for the structural analysis of cricket balls. Sport Technol 1(2–3):132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arakawa K, Mada T, Komatsu H, Shimizu T, Satou M, Takehara K, Etoh G (2009) Dynamic deformation behavior of a golf ball during normal impact. Exp Mech 49:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alsakarneh A, Yigit AS, Cotterell M, Barrett J (2010) Nonlinear impact system identification using high speed camera. International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Robotics and Aerospace, Bucharest, pp 200–205Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koenig K, Mitchell N, Hannigan T, Clutter J (2004) The influence of moment of inertia on baseball/soft ball bat swing speed. J Sports Eng 7:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cross R (2003) Oblique impact of a tennis ball on the strings of a tennis racket. J Sports Eng 6:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery DG (2005) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York. ISBN 978-0-471-48735-XzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amjad Alsakarneh
    • 1
  • Keith Bryan
    • 2
  • Matt Cotterell
    • 2
  • John Barrett
    • 1
  1. 1.Nimbus Center for Embedded Systems ResearchCork Institute of TechnologyCorkIreland
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringCork Institute of TechnologyCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations