Sports Engineering

, 22:9 | Cite as

High-order computational fluid dynamics simulations of a spinning golf ball

  • Jacob CrabillEmail author
  • Freddie Witherden
  • Antony Jameson
Original Article


This paper presents the first high-order computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of static and spinning golf balls at realistic flow conditions. The present results are shown to capture the complex fluid dynamics inside the dimples which lead to drag reduction versus a smooth sphere, and compare well to previous experimental and computational studies. The high-order flux reconstruction method has been paired with the artificial boundary overset method to enable simplified mesh generation and grid motion. The compressible Navier–Stokes equations are modeled using a scale-resolving large eddy simulation (LES) approach with no sub-grid models. The codes implementing these methods have been implemented for NVIDIA graphical processing units (GPUs), enabling large speedups over traditional computer hardware. The new method allows for the simulation of golf balls, and other objects at moderate Reynolds numbers, to be simulated in a matter of days on large computing clusters.


Computational fluid dynamics Large eddy simulation Finite element methods Golf ball Sports aerodynamics 



The authors would like to acknowledge the Army Aviation Development Directorate (AMRDEC) for providing funding for this research under the oversight of Roger Strawn, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for their support under Grant FA9550-14-1-0186 under the oversight of Jean-Luc Cambier, and Margot Gerritsen for access to the XStream GPU computing cluster, which is supported by the National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation program (ACI-1429830). We would also like to thank Dr. Peter Eiseman for providing academic licensing to the GridPro meshing software and assisting with the creation of several golf ball grids. Last, we would like to thank Dr. Jay Sitaraman for his expertise and help on overset connectivity methods, and his help in ensuring our numerical methods were robust enough for broad applicability.


  1. 1.
    Aoki K, Muto K, Okanaga H (2010) Aerodynamic characteristics and flow pattern of a golf ball with rotation. Procedia Eng 2:2431–2436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asthana K, Jameson A (2014) High-order flux reconstruction schemes with minimal dispersion and dissipation. J Sci Comput 62:913–944MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bearman PW, Harvey JK (1976) Golf ball aerodynamics. Aeronaut Q 27:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beratlis N, Squires K, Belaras E (2012) Numerical investigation of Magnus effect on dimpled spheres. J Turbul 13(15):1–15. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butcher JC (2016) Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castonguay P (2012) High-order energy stable flux reconstruction schemes for fluid flow simulations on unstructured grids. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi J, Jeon WP, Choi H (2006) Mechanism of drag reduction by dimples on a sphere. Phys Fluids 18:041702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chowdhury H, Loganathan B, Wang Y, Mustary I, Alam F (2016) A study of dimple characteristics on golf ball drag. Procedia Eng 147:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crabill J, Jameson A, Sitaraman J (2016) A high-order overset method on moving and deforming grids. In: AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference (AIAA2016-3225).
  10. 10.
    Crabill JA (2018) Towards industry-ready high-order overset methods on modern hardware. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crabill JA, Witherden FD, Jameson A (2018) A parallel direct cut algorithm for high-order overset methods with application to a spinning golf ball. J Comput Phys 374:692–723MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiseman PR, Ebenezer SJ, Sudharshanam V, Anbumani V (2016) GridPro manuals, version 2.0. Accessed 2 Sept 2016
  13. 13.
    Galbraith MC (2013) A discontinuous galerkin overset solver. Ph.D. thesis, University of CincinattiGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geuzaine C, Remacle JF (2009) Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79:1309–1331 (Mesh-Generation Software) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindenlang F, Bolemann T, Munz CD (2015) Mesh curving techniques for high order discontinuous Galerkin simulations. In: Kroll N, Hirsch C, Bassi F, Johnston C, Hillewaert K (eds) IDIHOM: industrialization of high-order methods—a top–down approach. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–152Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huynh HT (2007) A flux reconstruction approach to high-order schemes including discontinuous Galerkin methods. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meetingGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karypis G, Kumar V (1998) A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM J Sci Comput 20(1):359–392MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy CA, Carpenter MH, Lewis RM (2000) Low-storage, explicit Runge–Kutta schemes for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. Appl Numer Math 35(3):177–219MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langguth J, Wu N, Cai JCX (2013) On the GPU performance of cell-centered finite volume method over unstructured tetrahedral meshes. In: S. SC13 International conference for high performance computing networking, analysis (eds.) \(IA^3\): Workshop on irregular applications: architectures and algorithms. ACM, Denver, CO, USA.
  20. 20.
    Li J, Tsubokura M, Tsunoda M (2015) Numerical investigation of the flow around a golf ball at around the critical Reynolds number and its comparison with a smooth sphere. Flow Turbul Combust 95:415–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li J, Tsubokura M, Tsunoda M (2017) Numerical investigation of the flow past a rotating golf ball and its comparison with a rotating smooth sphere. Flow Turbul Combust 99:837–864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mehta RD (1985) Aerodynamics of sports balls. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 17:151–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muto M, Tsubokura M, Oshima N (2012) Negative Magnus lift on a rotating sphere at around the critical Reynolds number. Phys Fluids 24:014102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romero JD (2017) On the development of the direct flux reconstruction scheme for high-order fluid flow simulations. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sitaraman J (2015) TIOGA: topology independent overset grid assembly library. (Overset Connectivity Library for CFD). Accessed 26 June 2018
  26. 26.
    Smith CE, Beratlis N, Balaras E, Squires K, Tsunoda M (2010) Numerical investigation of the flow over a golf ball in the subcritical and supercritical regimes. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 31:262–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smits AJ, Smith DR (1994) A new aerodynamic model of a golf ball in flight. In: Cochran AJ, Farrally MR (eds) Science and golf II: proceedings of the world scientific congress of golf. E & FN Spon, London, pp 340–347Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ting LL (2002) Application of CFD technology analyzing the three-dimensional aerodynamic behavior of dimpled golf balls. In: ASME international mechanical engineering congress & expositionGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ting LL (2003) Effects of dimple size and depth on golf ball aerodynamics. In: 4th ASME/JSME joint fluids engineering conferenceGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vermeire BC, Witherden FD, Vincent PE (2017) On the utility of GPU accelerated high-order methods for unsteady flow simulations: a comparison with industry-standard tools. J Comput phys 334:497–521MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vincent P, Castonguay P, Jameson A (2010) A new class of high-order energy stable flux reconstruction schemes. J Sci Comput 47:50–72MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vincent P, Castonguay P, Jameson A (2011) Insights from von Neumann analysis of high-order flux reconstruction schemes. J Comput phys 230:8134–8154MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vincent P, Witherden F, Vermeire B, Park JS, Iyer A (2016) Towards green aviation with Python at petascale. In: Proceedings of the international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, SC ’16. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
  34. 34.
    Williams DM, Castonguay P, Vincent PE, Jameson A (2013) Energy stable flux reconstruction schemes for advection–diffusion problems on triangles. J Comput Phys 230:8134–8154MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wissink A (2012) Helios solver developments including strand meshes. In: Oral presentation, 11th symposium on overset composite grids and solution technologyGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wissink A (2012) An overset dual-mesh solver for computational fluid dynamics. In: 7th International conference on computational fluid dynamics (ICCFD7)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Witherden FD, Farrington AM, Vincent PE (2014) PyFR: an open source framework for solving advection-diffusion type problems on streaming architectures using the flux reconstruction approach. Comput Phys Commun 185:3028–3040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Witherden FD, Vincent PE, Jameson A (2016) High-order flux reconstruction schemes. In: Handbook of numerical analysis, vol 17, pp 227–2633. Elsevier, Boca Raton. (chap. 10)

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob Crabill
    • 1
    Email author
  • Freddie Witherden
    • 1
  • Antony Jameson
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations